Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: $5,076 Sua Sponte CCP § 128.7 Fee Sanctions Order Reversed For Three Reasons–Inadequate Notice, Lack Of Bad Faith, And Ordering Payment to Defendant

Cases: Sanctions

  Civility Would Have Likely Averted the Whole Dispute, With Santa Ana Appellate Court Emphasizing Cooperation Rather Than Continued Litigation.      This is an interesting sanctions case, rife with cogent interminglings of discussions on the need for civility rather than continued litigation aggression when a transparent, inadvertent error was made during the course of a […]

Sanctions/Section 998/Costs/Private Attorney General: Four-In-One Post Unpublished Quartet

Cases: Costs, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998

Sanctions–Spahl v. Santiago, Case No. B236369 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished).     In this one, plaintiffs sanctioned under CCP § 128.7 argued that defendants' inclusion of a request for dismissal in its motion for sanction rendered the sanctions request invalid. Not so, because simply doing this did not contravene underlying any statutory purpose

Sanctions: Due Process Sanctions Under OSC Order Need To Be Specific

Cases: Sanctions

       In ASAP Copy and Print v. Cannon Business Solutions, Inc., Case No. B232801 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 1, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court did reverse a specific OSC re sanctions order based on due process grounds. Although multiple grounds may have supported sanctions, the lower court’s order only cited one specific section,

Discovery/Sanctions: Attorney Not Complying With Court Order On Letter Sent to Defense Customers Was Properly Hit With Discovery Sanctions

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

       In Leeyer v. Pro Circuit Products, Inc., Case No. D059660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 19, 2013) (unpublished), an attorney was hit with $6,400 in discovery sanctions under CCP § 2030.030 for not abiding with the terms of a court order regarding the form of a letter sent to defendant’s customers buying a

Discovery/Requests For Admissions/Sanctions: Second District Court Of Appeal Affirms Sanctions Denials On Issues Litigators Encounter With Frequency

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

  Discovery, Mediation, and RFA Sanctions Denied.      Hi, folks. Although we are in the Holidays (busy at that), we do like to report on decisions that have issues of recurring interest to California litigators. The next one should be a case that peaks such an interest and provides resonant lessons to us all —

Discovery/Sanctions: Acacia Research Subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. Facing F.R.Civ. P. 37 Fees And Expenses From Atlanta Federal Court Discovery Dispute

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Oops      In Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1098-TCB (N.D. Ga.) [Doc. 271 filed Sept. 14, 2012), District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. has decided that Acacia Research subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. (OPS) will have to pay fees and expenses under F.R.Civ. P. 37 for Intel’s motion to compel

Scroll to Top