Cases: Sanctions

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 B224295/B225702 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 4, 2012) (unpublished) was an incredible donnybrook over a fairly minor dispute involving a photocopier lease/maintenance agreement.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Sanctions: $13,250 CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Where Trial Court Did Not Indicate That Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Frivolous Or Without Merit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  Lack of Findings on Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Critical to Reversal.      In Sverdlin v. Yollin, Case No. B234184 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 10, 2012) (unpublished), defendant/defendant’s attorneys appealed a CCP § 128.7(c)(1) sanctions award [the equivalent of a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11] in favor of plaintiff.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

Sanctions/E-Discovery/Substantiation Of Fees: New York Federal Magistrate Clarifies That FRCP 37 Fee Recovery Can Be Had For Attorney Rates From Outside The Case Venue Area

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Sanctions: $63,087.50 Sanction Against Los Angeles Vacated Because Deputy City Attorney Did Not Violate In Limine Order

Cases: Sanctions

  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.     

Sanctions: $1 Million Fee/Costs Award For Belated Production Of Computer Embedded Information During Trial Affirmed

Cases: Sanctions

  Jneid II Vindicated Award of Substantial Costs for Dilatory Production of Documents During Trial.      In our December 20, 2009 post, we explored Jneid v. Tripole, where our local Fourth District, Division 3 appellate court reversed as too severe issue/evidentiary sanctions essentially resulting in a “directed verdict” after defendant belatedly produced 17,000 pages of

Sanctions: Musaelian v. Adams CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Update

Cases: Sanctions

  Case Now Published.      In our July 3, 2011 post, we discussed Musaelian v. Adams, an unpublished First District decision discussing the standards for awarding attorney’s fees for defending against a CCP § 128.7 motion, using analogous Rule 11 federal case law in reaching its result. We can now report that this decision is

Scroll to Top