Lower Court Denial Based on Rescheduled Hearing Date Was No Reason to Deny. In Whitehill v. Valente, Case No. A137613 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2014) (unpublished), a litigant was denied CCP § 128.7 sanctions for not satisfying the 21 day “safe harbor” period for the opposing side to withdraw a pleading/comply […]
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
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 Apr. 14, 2014) (unpublished) had a
“Walking Out and Not Coming Back” Is Not a Legitimate Option. The defense in Fletcher v. HPN Holdings, Case No. F064864 (5th Dist. Apr. 8, 2014) (unpublished) was sanctioned $6,000 under CCP §2023.030(a), inclusive of attorney’s fees for bringing the motion to compel and arguing it, for failing to honor an agreement to
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
Although Unpublished, Does Tell Lower Courts You Have To Calendar and Reserve a Date Even If the Motion Is Unfiled And Potentially Never Heard. This next case, although unpublished, is very interesting, and it will see how it pans out for practitioners and superior courts as far as calendaring/scheduling/reserving dates for motions, given
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
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.
Client Does Lose Attempt to Get Fees For Defending Against Sanctions Motion Because Such Recovery Is Not Automatic Under Section 128.7(c), With Lower Court Being Able to Conclude $95K Award Sufficed. Genutec Business Solutions, Inc. v. Taus, Case No. G046062 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2014) (unpublished), a 3-0 decision authored by Presiding
Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions But Remands for Cost-Shifting in Favor of Non-Party in FRCP 45 Subpoena Dispute. The Ninth Circuit has ended the year with a “bang” as far as clarifying non-party appeal rights and the circumstances under which subpoena compliance cost shifting is mandatory under F.R.Civ.P. 45. The opinion
