Cases: Sanctions – Page 29 – Cal Attorneys Fees

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

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Marriage of Yassin and Aboutaleb, Case No. B205958 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 8, 2010) (Unpublished)–Case #1.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 In Skerston v. Newman, Case No. G043164 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2010) (unpublished), the good news for an in pro per defendant is that he won a SLAPP motion.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

Family Law/Discovery Sanctions: Attorney Sanctioned To Pay $1,650 In Discovery Sanctions Still Must Pay Them

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

November 4, 2010

Court of Appeal Did Not Condone Keeping OSC Contempt Hearing On Calendar With No Intent to Proceed. The next one is an object lesson, likely reinforcing that sanctions can follow from not showing professional courtesy–at the least. In Marriage of Booth, Case No. A127140 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished), wife’s

Discovery Sanctions: Over $1.9 Million In Fee Sanctions Reversed With Overturning of Terminating Sanctions Award

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

November 2, 2010

Second District, Division 3 Finds No Prior Predicate Discovery Order to Underpin Large Sanctions Award. This one is a whopper of a reversal . . . demonstrating that appellate courts will insist that large sanctions awards for discovery abuses be based strictly on predicate rulings required under the Discovery Act. Callan v. CRC

Discovery Sanctions: Sanctions Against Attorney For Evasive RFA Response Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

October 28, 2010

Fourth District, Division 3 Reminds Us That Prior Motion to Compel Is No Precondition to Sanctions Request. This next case is not so much remarkable for the result, but for reminders on what should be done by litigators when responding to discovery requests. In Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co. (Kent), Case No.