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 In our July 3, 2011 post, we discussed Musaelian v. Adams, an unpublished First District decision discussing the standards for awarding attorney’s fees for defending against a CCP § 128.7 motion, using analogous Rule 11 federal case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
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 In Marriage of Lancashire, Case No. B217022 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 23, 2011) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 6 discussed deadlines for bringing attorney’s fees motions based on sanctionable conduct of family law litigants under Family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
Inherent Power of the Court Sanctions Reach a Broad Spectrum of Conduct, As Shown in the Article. Gregory P. Joseph, a New York City attorney, has written an article, “Developments in the Federal Law of Sanctions,” which has been published in the April 12, 2011 edition of The United States Law Week. It explores
Appeal of Two Sanctions Orders Are Dismissed. Warkentin v. Countrywide Home Loans, Case No. F059782 (5th Dist. Apr. 29, 2011) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court dismissed two appeals of sanctions orders, one of $2,012 for a plaintiff reasserting allegations that were earlier stricken from a pleading and the other amounting to
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
