Ninth Circuit Follows the View of Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits on the Issue. In FTC v. EDebitPay, LLC, Case No. 11-55431 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2012) (published), the Ninth Circuit followed the viewpoints of the Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits in holding that district courts can consider consumer loss in calculating sanctions […]
Defendant’s Attorneys Seeking Certiorari Grant by U.S. Supreme Court, With Several Amici Curiae Briefs Having Been Filed in Support of Defendant’s Position. In 1997, the Hyde Amendment was enacted, giving federal district judges the authority to award fees and other expenses to criminal defendants proving gross misconduct on the part of federal prosecutors
Reversal of Sanctions Award Now Published, Showing Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege. In our July 31, 2012 post, we examined Diepenbrock v. Brown, a First District, Division 3 unpublished decision reversing a protective order sanctions award based upon an unsettled marital privilege issue. We can now report that the opinion was
CCP § 177.5 Sanctions of $1,500 Also Vacated. Pori v. Superior Court, Case No. A135181 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 8, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting case where the appellate court vacated contempt and CCP § 177.5 sanctions award against a criminal defense attorney in a peremptory writ proceeding. Defense attorney apparently
District Judge Failed to Gauge Success Where Small Amount At Issue, Requiring a Lodestar Reanalysis on Remand. The Ninth Circuit in Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, Case No. 10-16615 et al. (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2012) (published) dealt with a plaintiff suing a collecting law firm under the Fair Debt Collection
Substantial Justification for Opposition Given Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege. Plaintiff and her attorney were sanctioned $5,000 for unsuccessfully opposing a protective order motion brought by a third-party attempting to protect certain information from discovery under the marital privilege. The trial court thought the law clear on the issue and sanctioned
Substantial Sanctions Remanded for Exercise of Discretion Because District Judge Did Not Believe It Had Authority To Reduce For Impecuniousness Concerns. The Ninth Circuit in Haynes v. City & County of San Francisco, Case Bi, 10-16327 (9th Cir. July 23, 2012) (published) faced review of a $362,545.61 sanctions award against an attorney pursuing
Also, Appeal of 1987.2 Sanctions Is a Collateral Order Subject to Review. In the sanctions area, we have had several posts indicating that due process can result in a reversal of a sanctions award under the right circumstances. Those circumstances did exist in Scholz v. Boston Herald, Inc. (Miller, Kaplan, Arase & Co.),
Ninth Circuit Would Not Award Fees As a Sanctions, But Does Hold Attorney Liable for Costs. The Ninth Circuit in The Save the Peaks Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, Case No. 10-17896 (9th Cir. June 21, 2012) (published) found that plaintiffs’ counsel had multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously under 28 U.S.C. §
Also, Sanctions Against Attorney Upheld Under CCP § 128.7, But Not SLAPP Statute. ASAP Copy and Print v. Ringgold, Case Nos. B224295/B225702 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 4, 2012) (unpublished) was an incredible donnybrook over a fairly minor dispute involving a photocopier lease/maintenance agreement. The amount of time, trouble, and fees that is
