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 Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) was hit with a sanctions award of $100,000 (out of a requested $355,000, $250,000 of which comprised attorney’s fees)
First Circuit Finds Excluded Trial Evidence Could Be Used to Determine Reasonableness of Suit, Reversing Fee Award; Reviewing Court Also Scaled Down Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Attorney. In a civil rights political discrimination case, a district judge granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law after a 15 day trial, in
Fifth District So Holds. In Flores v. Georgeson, Case No. F059173 (5th Dist. Jan. 10, 2011) (certified for publication), the Fifth District held that a vexatious litigant does not need to satisfy the CCP § 391.7(a) permission-prefiling requirement when the litigant is represented by counsel in a case. The 3-0 decision was penned
Level of Culpability and Prejudice Are Still Key Factors Driving Sanctions Awards. Just as we are giving you our top 20 attorney’s fees decisional redux for 2010, Williams Mullen, a 300-attorney firm with offices in Virginia, North Carolina, D.C. and London, has posted a December 17, 2010 Alert that provides a nice summary of
Marriage of Yassin and Aboutaleb, Case No. B205958 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 8, 2010) (Unpublished)–Case #1. Ex-husband was ordered to pay $5,000 to cover ex-wife fees and expenses under Family Code section 271, which permits the trial court to award fees as a sanctions for uncooperative or cost producing conduct. Although the
Defendant Was In Pro Per, So No Fee; CCP § 128.5 Did Not Provide Basis. In Skerston v. Newman, Case No. G043164 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2010) (unpublished), the good news for an in pro per defendant is that he won a SLAPP motion. The bad news is that in pro per
