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 Pori v. Superior Court, Case No. A135181 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 8, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting case where the appellate court vacated contempt and CCP § 177.5 sanctions award against a criminal defense attorney in a peremptory writ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 B224295/B225702 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 4, 2012) (unpublished) was an incredible donnybrook over a fairly minor dispute involving a photocopier lease/maintenance agreement.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
Lack of Findings on Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Critical to Reversal.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,
