Cases: Sanctions

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      A lower court in Marriage of Young, Case No. B234768 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 23, 2013) (unpublished) decided that a husband, after four years of “active” litigation, should have to pay sanctions to wife of $120,000 under Family Code section 2107(c)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

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

Scroll to Top