Cases: Sanctions

Probate/Sanctions: Trust Beneficiary Hit With $105,300 In Attorneys Fees And Costs To Trustee And Guardian Ad Litem Under CCP § 128.5 Does Not Get Relief On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

  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      Estate of Sprott, Case No. B237989 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where a trust beneficiary of a modest trust estate of around $300,000 rang up over $100,000 in fees on bringing lots of motions which did not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 […]

Family Law/Sanctions: $43,000 Sanctions Reversed Against Attorney For Violating California State Bar Rules Of Professional Conduct Through Hiring An Ineligible Co-counsel In Family Law Proceeding

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  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

Discovery/Sanctions: To Aggregate Or Not, That Is The Question

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  $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

Appeal Sanctions/Sanctions: Lower Court Sanctions Affirmed, But Appellate Court Either Denies Sanctions Or Imposes A Minimal One In The Interests Of Justice

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Sanctions

  Two Appeals Demonstrate How Overall Equities Factor Into Appellate Sanctions Decisionmaking Process.      Here are two interesting appeals by a sanctioned client and attorney from lower court decisions, with appellate sanctions being sought by the respondents on appeal. The results are interesting and decided by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth on behalf of identical 3-0

Class Action/Paralegal Time/Sanctions: Court Of Appeal Affirms $176,900 Discovery Monetary Sanctions Against One Class Action Counsel, Sustains Awarding The Same Counsel No Fees Based On Tarnished Credibility

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Sanctions

  Also Sustains Awarding $176,900 To Same Counsel’s Staff For Work Effort, And Remands For Consideration Of Costs Request Appellate Court Finds that Paralegals Do Not Necessarily Have to Meet California B&P Educational/Certification Requirements in Order to Obtain Compensation.      This next case, Ellis v. Toshiba America Information System, Inc. (Sklar), Case Nos. B220286/B227078 (2d

Sanctions: FBI’s Previous Compliance With Document Existence/Search Information Through In Camera Previous Proceedings Meant Future Rule 11 Sanctions Were Inappropriate

Cases: Sanctions

  Because District Judge Had Already Ruled on FBI’s Compliance, So No Rule 11 Sanctions Would Lie.      Ya know, timing is everything; life in general, but especially in the law. The next case demonstrates the truth of this saying in real life time, all in the context of Rule 11 sanctions.      Islamic Shura

Family Law: $120,000 Sanctions Properly Entered Against Husband Based On Both Family Code Sections 2107(c) And 271

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  No Injury Required to Opposing Party Under Section 2107(c).      A lower court in Marriage of Young, Case No. B234768 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 23, 2013) (unpublished) decided that a husband, after four years of “active” litigation, should have to pay sanctions to wife of $120,000 under Family Code section 2107(c) [mandating candid

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

Scroll to Top