Cases: Sanctions

Discovery/Sanctions: Quinn Emanuel Firm And Client Samsung Ordered To Pay More Than $2 Million In Discovery Sanctions For Disclosing Confidential License Terms Between Apple And Nokia To Samsung

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Nokia Receives $1.5 Million And Apple About $894,000.      U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the Northern District of California, on June 20, 2014, ordered Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and its client Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. to pay more than $2 million in sanctions for disclosing confidential terms of a patent license […]

Discovery/Sanctions: Appeal By Plaintiff’s Attorney From Adverse Discovery Monetary Sanctions Award Dismissed As Moot

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Parties Agreed to Settlement Where Neither Plaintiff Nor His Attorneys Liable for Discovery Sanctions, Mooting the Appeal.      Ya know, sometimes you should simply throw in the towel once a dispute has been resolved, aiding the appellate court in saving some resources so that they can dismiss an appeal without the need for an

Sanctions: $6,000 Sanctions Against Plaintiff/Its Counsel Affirmed For Frivolous CEQA Claim

Cases: Sanctions

  Public Resources Code Section 21169.11 Imposes Discretionary Sanction Power on Lower Court, Judged By An Objective Standard as to Frivolousness.      Public Resources Code section 21169.11 provides that a lower court may impose an appropriate sanction, up to $10,000, upon parties, attorneys, or law firms responsible for bringing/prosecuting a frivolous CEQA claim. In Helping

Sanctions: Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office, Hit With $500 Sanctions Under CCP § 177.5, Does Not Get Order Overturned On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

  One of Our Few Posts Which Might Interest Criminal Practitioners.      This is one of the few posts that might interest criminal practitioners or practitioners who have a mixed criminal/civil practice.      The Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office in Lee v. Superior Court, Case No. H039380 (6th Dist. Apr. 14, 2014) (unpublished) had a

Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Withdraws and Reissues Islamic Shura Opinion

Cases: Sanctions

  Rule 11 Sanctions Were Inappropriate When Rendered After Merits Decided And After Defendants Corrected Pleadings.      In our July 31, 2013 post, we discussed Islamic Shura Council v. FBI, 725 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2013), where the Ninth Circuit reversed a Rule 11 sanctions order which was issued after a merits determination and after

Sanctions: Fourth District, Division 1 Follows Galleria – CCP § 128.7 Safe Harbor Provision Not Satisfied Unless Unfiled Motion Has Definitive Hearing Date

Cases: Sanctions

  Although Unpublished, Does Tell Lower Courts You Have To Calendar and Reserve a Date Even If the Motion Is Unfiled And Potentially Never Heard.      This next case, although unpublished, is very interesting, and it will see how it pans out for practitioners and superior courts as far as calendaring/scheduling/reserving dates for motions, given

Sanctions: Court’s Sua Sponte Sanctions Order Reversed Because No Description Of Offending Conduct And Sanctions Cannot Be Awarded To Other Party

Cases: Sanctions

  These Types of Sanctions Had To Go To Court.      A lower court, on its own OSC, imposed sanctions against one of plaintiff’s attorneys and in favor of defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b), (d)(2), but this was reversed by the appellate court in Meusner v. Allstate Ins. Co., Case No. A136243

Appealability/Sanctions: Non-Aggrieved Parties, Not Attorneys, Appealing From Sanctions Order Lacked Standing

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

  Appeal Dismissed on Summary Basis.      Gotta have standing to appeal. Basic principle, but one reinforced in Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi v. Azizi, Case No. A138115 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished).      Clients’ attorneys got sanctioned in a discovery matter, with the lower court imposing a $10,500 sanctions order. Clients appealed.

Scroll to Top