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 B224295/B225702 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 4, 2012) (unpublished) was an incredible donnybrook over a fairly minor dispute involving a photocopier lease/maintenance agreement.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
Lack of Findings on Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Critical to Reversal. In Sverdlin v. Yollin, Case No. B234184 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 10, 2012) (unpublished), defendant/defendant’s attorneys appealed a CCP § 128.7(c)(1) sanctions award [the equivalent of a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11] in favor of plaintiff.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.
$3,750 Sanctions Award Against Counsel Violated Due Process Standards. The Second District, Division 6, in North County Watch v. County of San Luis Obispo, Case No. B231090 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 27, 2012) (unpublished), reversed imposition of a $3,750 sanctions award on counsel for failure to comply with court rules for prosecution
$35,000 Sanctions Award Against Client and Counsel Reversed. Marriage of Suther, Case No. E051292 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 19, 2012) (not for publication) involved a $35,000 joint sanctions award against client and attorney for trying to recuse a judge in a family matter. It was reversed on appeal because of procedural defects,
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
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
Magistrate Also Discounts 10% Across the Board for “Block Billing.” Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, 2012 WL 503810 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2012) is a federal opinion from outside California that caught our eye for its departure from the so-called “forum rule”–reasonable attorney’s fees in the fee-shifting area are usually based on the work for comparable
Also, Non-compensatory Sanctions Over $5,000 Likely Needs Criminal Contempt Protections. Under Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), district judges have inherent power to sanction for bad faith violations during proceedings. However, there are limits to how far this can go, especially when a substantial sanction over $5,000 is involved.
