Cases: Sanctions – Page 28 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Sanctions/Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Eleventh Circuit Decision In Shaygan Is A Sharply Split Decision On Interpretation of Hyde Amendment

August 24, 2012

Defendant’s Attorneys Seeking Certiorari Grant by U.S. Supreme Court, With Several Amici Curiae Briefs Having Been Filed in Support of Defendant’s Position. In 1997, the Hyde Amendment was enacted, giving federal district judges the authority to award fees and other expenses to criminal defendants proving gross misconduct on the part of federal prosecutors […]

Discovery/Sanctions: Diepenbrock Decision Is Now Published

August 21, 2012

Reversal of Sanctions Award Now Published, Showing Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege. In our July 31, 2012 post, we examined Diepenbrock v. Brown, a First District, Division 3 unpublished decision reversing a protective order sanctions award based upon an unsettled marital privilege issue. We can now report that the opinion was

Sanctions: Contempt Of Court Jail Time And $1,000 Fine Vacated Through Peremptory Writ

Cases: Sanctions

August 10, 2012

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 Pori v. Superior Court, Case No. A135181 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 8, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting case where the appellate court vacated contempt and CCP § 177.5 sanctions award against a criminal defense attorney in a peremptory writ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

Consumer Statutes/Sanctions: $2,301.95 Fee/Costs Award To Plaintiff Accepting Rule 68 Offer Reversed

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Sanctions

August 1, 2012

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

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

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

July 31, 2012

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

July 25, 2012

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

Sanctions: Sanctions Imposed Under CCP § 1987.2 Reversed On Due Process Grounds

Cases: Sanctions

June 22, 2012

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.),

Sanctions: Attorney Multiplying Proceedings Unreasonably and Vexatiously Liable For Costs Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Cases: Sanctions

June 22, 2012

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. §

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

June 5, 2012

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

May 11, 2012

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.