Cases: Sanctions – Page 29 – Cal Attorneys Fees

E-Discovery Sanctions: State Appellate Court Affirms $13,500 Sanction Against Plaintiff And Her Attorney For Being Evasive In E-Discovery Cell Phone Dispute

February 23, 2011

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 […]

Discovery/Sanctions: $1,750 Sanction Against Losing Party Seeking Protective Order Sustained

February 9, 2011

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 Law: $100,000 In Sanctions Under Family Code Section 271 Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

February 9, 2011

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 Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) was hit with a sanctions award of $100,000 (out of a requested $355,000, $250,000 of which comprised attorney’s fees)

Civil Rights/Sanctions: Federal Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on When Fees Should Be Awarded Against Losing Civil Rights Plaintiffs

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions

January 12, 2011

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

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Does Not Need Prefiling Permission When Represented By Counsel In A Case.

Cases: Sanctions

January 10, 2011

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

E-Discovery 2010: Sanctions Are Down For The First Time Since The 2006 F.R.Civ.P Amendments

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

December 24, 2010

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

Family Law: A Two-Fer . . . No Abuse In Awarding Fees Under Family Code Section 271

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

December 9, 2010

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

SLAPP/Sanctions: Sanctions To Winning In Pro Per Defendants Reversed

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

December 8, 2010

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

Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Of $24,324 Against Attorney Affirmed

Cases: Sanctions

November 18, 2010

Fourth District, Division 2 Agrees that Sanctions Could Not Be Imposed For Amended Complaint, But Found Attorney Waived Any Error. Here is an interesting nonpublished decision in the CCP § 128.7 area. Basically, the appellate court agreed with the merits of the appellant attorney’s argument, but affirmed because he had agreed to continue

Discovery Sanctions: $52,600 In Discovery Sanctions Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

November 10, 2010

Third District Finds Substantial Justification for Sanctioned Parties’ Position, Many of Which Involved Attorney-Client Privilege Concerns. Although involving a convoluted set of facts for which we will only give you the “Reader’s Digest” version, Truckee Carson Irrig. Dist. v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., Case No. C061004 (3d Dist. Nov. 9, 2010) (unpublished) does