$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 […]
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
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 In Ayala v. Gutierrez, Case No. B243006 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 3, 2013) (unpublished), defendants filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint and a motion to compel discovery (including a request for sanctions) against plaintiff.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 A lower court in Marriage of Young, Case No. B234768 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 23, 2013) (unpublished) decided that a husband, after four years of “active” litigation, should have to pay sanctions to wife of $120,000 under Family Code section 2107(c) [mandating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
