Cases: Sanctions

Discovery/Sanctions: $5,000 Sanctions For Unsuccessfully Opposing A Protective Order On Marital Privilege Issue Reversed

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  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 […]

Sanctions: District Judge May Consider Attorney’s Ability To Pay In Imposing Sanctions On Attorney Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Cases: Sanctions

  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

Fee Clause Interpretation/SLAPP/Sanctions: 25% Contractual Fee Recovery-Capped Clause For Prosecuting Activities Held Not To Apply To Defense Activities

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

  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 B224295/B225702 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 4, 2012) (unpublished) was an incredible donnybrook over a fairly minor dispute involving a photocopier lease/maintenance agreement.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

Sanctions: $13,250 CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Where Trial Court Did Not Indicate That Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Frivolous Or Without Merit

Cases: Sanctions

  Lack of Findings on Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Critical to Reversal.      In Sverdlin v. Yollin, Case No. B234184 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 10, 2012) (unpublished), defendant/defendant’s attorneys appealed a CCP § 128.7(c)(1) sanctions award [the equivalent of a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11] in favor of plaintiff. Good move by the defense/defense attorneys.     

Deadlines To Appeal/Sanctions: FRCP Rule 11 Sanctions Order Does Not Require A “Separate [Judgment] Document” To Trigger Running Of Normal 30-Day Appeals Period

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Sanctions

  Seventh Circuit Discusses FRCP Entanglement, Does Not Believe Attorney’s Fees Sanctions Orders Are To Be Treated Differently Than Normal Federal Fee Orders.      The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Feldman v. Olin, No. 11-2722 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012), tackled a messy federal rules of civil procedure issue relating to whether attorneys

Bankruptcy/Sanctions: No Immediate Appeal Of District Court Sitting In Bankruptcy’s Sanctions Order Under F.R.B.P. 11 Or Under District Court’s Inherent Powers

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Sanctions

  Dissenting Justice Would Reconsider Hawaii Corp. Rule.      In Klestadt & Winters, LLP v. Cangelosi, Case Nos. 10-16970 et al. (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, determined that Rule 11/inherent powers sanctions orders against a client and their attorneys by a district court sitting in bankruptcy

Scroll to Top