Remittitur Cost Apportionment Issue Also Considered. The First District, Division 4, in a case it had seen before a couple of times (with the case eventually going to the state supreme court), had decided that an in pro per attorney could not collect an award of attorney’s fees in connection with CCP § […]
Vinson Allows Such Inquiries During Discovery. Where a plaintiff in a wrongful termination suit puts his/her medical condition into controversy, Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833 (1987) held that an IME/psychological exam was fair game because this condition was at issue in the suit. In like vein, Acting Justice Rylaarsdam on
Second District, Division 6 Does So While Affirming $75,000 Sanctions Award. In Marriage of Lancashire, Case No. B217022 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 23, 2011) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 6 discussed deadlines for bringing attorney’s fees motions based on sanctionable conduct of family law litigants under Family Code section 271 before it
Inherent Power of the Court Sanctions Reach a Broad Spectrum of Conduct, As Shown in the Article. Gregory P. Joseph, a New York City attorney, has written an article, “Developments in the Federal Law of Sanctions,” which has been published in the April 12, 2011 edition of The United States Law Week. It explores
Appeal of Two Sanctions Orders Are Dismissed. Warkentin v. Countrywide Home Loans, Case No. F059782 (5th Dist. Apr. 29, 2011) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court dismissed two appeals of sanctions orders, one of $2,012 for a plaintiff reasserting allegations that were earlier stricken from a pleading and the other amounting to
You Gotta Read On To See What Happens. This one started out badly for attorney. A trial judge imposed three types of awards against plaintiff”s attorney: (1) a $2,035 award for partial discovery referee expenses; (2) a $2,335 award for plaintiff’s deposition nonappearance; and (3) a CCP § 177.5 award of $1,500 for
Ex-Wife Not Give Proper Due Process Opportunity to Oppose. We knew this one was a reversal from the first few sentences–“Summary proceedings are common in family law cases. Nevertheless, however certain a court may be that a party or an attorney in a family law proceeding deserves sanctions, it must keep in mind
First District, Division 4 Finds Sanctions Proper Under CCP § 2023.030(a). We do not see that many e-discovery sanction cases at the state level, with most of the law being decided by federal courts–notwithstanding that the Evidence Code definition of “writing” does include electronic information. Here is one where a $13,500 discovery sanction
Losing Party Unsuccessfully Sought to Regulate Deposition Conduct of Opposing Counsel. Civil litigators have seen it often–an opposing attorney who overuses privilege objections, instructs deponents not to answer based on nonprivileged grounds, coaches the witness through speaking objections or interruptive conferences outside of the deposition, or insults counsel taking the depositions. Apparently, plaintiff
Family Judge Does Not Have To Expressly State Whether Consideration Was Given to Financial Burdens. An ex-wife in In re Marriage of Loumena, Case Nos. H032608/H033027 (6th Dist. Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) was hit with a sanctions award of $100,000 (out of a requested $355,000, $250,000 of which comprised attorney’s fees)
