$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 Marriage of Suther, Case No. E051292 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 19, 2012) (not for publication) involved a $35,000 joint sanctions award against client and attorney for trying to recuse a judge in a family matter.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, […]
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
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
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
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.
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
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 In our July 3, 2011 post, we discussed Musaelian v. Adams, an unpublished First District decision discussing the standards for awarding attorney’s fees for defending against a CCP § 128.7 motion, using analogous Rule 11 federal case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
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
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
