Cases: Sanctions

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

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Equity: Conditioning Leave To File Cross-Complaint Upon Payment Of $80,000 In Fees To Other Side Was No Go

Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Condition Was Too Much of a Sanction, Because Fees Not Causally Related to Cross-Complaint Filing.      In a convoluted fee dispute between former client and attorney, the trial court granted attorney leave to file a cross-complaint, but conditioned on attorney paying client some $80,000 to compensate her for attorney’s fees she incurred in preparing

Sanctions: Attorney’s Fees Requested Under CCP § 128.7 Denied Where Motion Not Clearly Targeted And Appeal Was Not Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Sanctions

  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 §

Discovery Sanctions: Blocking Deposition Questions On Prior Stress Events Justified Discovery Sanctions Against Plaintiff And His Attorney

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  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

Deadlines, Family Law: Recent Unpublished Decision Reviews Deadlines For Claiming Section 271 Fee Recovery

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top