Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Impose Discovery Sanctions. In Ayala v. Gutierrez, Case No. B243006 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 3, 2013) (unpublished), defendants filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint and a motion to compel discovery (including a request for sanctions) against plaintiff. Before the motions were heard, plaintiff dismissed […]
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
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
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 A lower court in Marriage of Young, Case No. B234768 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 23, 2013) (unpublished) decided that a husband, after four years of “active” litigation, should have to pay sanctions to wife of $120,000 under Family Code section 2107(c) [mandating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
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Sanctions–Spahl v. Santiago, Case No. B236369 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished).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
In ASAP Copy and Print v. Cannon Business Solutions, Inc., Case No. B232801 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 1, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court did reverse a specific OSC re sanctions order based on due process grounds.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,
In pro per husband got hit with a $5,000 discovery sanction in Marriage of Maynard, Case No. H035859 (6th Dist. Apr. 12, 2013) (unpublished). He appealed, but the appellate court found the order was not immediately appealable. Reason? CCP § 904.1(a)(11), (12) says $5,000 or less for a sanctions award cannot be appealed until
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
We thank reader Kurt Yap for educating us on these two issues. What happens if you are an in pro per litigant and want to obtain discovery sanctions for the work you did (based on them being akin to attorney’s fees as if the work had been done by a retained outside
