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one reinforced in Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi v. Azizi, Case No. A138115 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished).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 Genutec Business Solutions, Inc. v. Taus, Case No. G046062 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2014) (unpublished), a 3-0 decision authored by Presiding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
District Court Also Denied Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions After Defendant Withdrew Rule 11 Motion After Grant of Voluntary Dismissal; Reasons For Both — No Prevailing Party. The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, allows citizen suits and has a fee-shifting clause which allows a district court, in its discretion, to award litigation
Be careful what you appeal. In Marriage of O’Neill and Mitruka, Case Nos. Do62049/D062539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed these lower court determinations in a family law dispute: (a) Sustained a $8,000 fee award in favor of ex-wife for obtaining child support arrears reimbursement given
Party Can Possibly To Exposed For Sanctions, But Not Attorneys Under AAA Rules and CCP § 128.7. Well, here is a case which might bring some solace to attorneys representing clients in AAA arbitrations. Optimal Markets, Inc. v. Salant, Case No. H038571 (6th Dist. Nov. 26, 2013) (published) denied CCP § 128.7
Probate Court Equitable Powers Prevail. Estate of Sprott, Case No. B237989 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where a trust beneficiary of a modest trust estate of around $300,000 rang up over $100,000 in fees on bringing lots of motions which did not prevail. Ultimately, he was hit
Basis for Sanction–CRC 2.30(b)–Is Not Well-Founded. A family law attorney, in Marriage of Bianco, Case No. D062061 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2013) (published), was sanctioned $43,000, after a mistrial in a family law matter, because her co-counsel was ineligible to practice law, which might well have constituted a violation of the
$6,000 Aggregate Sanctions for Three Separate Discovery Motions Did Not Meet $5,000 Minimum Appellate Threshold. In order to be appealable, an order imposing a monetary sanction must exceed $5,000. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1(a)(12).) However, what happens when a litigant appeals a $6,000 reduced sanctions award where the opponent filed three separate discovery
