Cases: Sanctions

Family Law, Sanctions: $222,952 Fee Award To Ex-Husband Under Family Code Section 271 For Prevailing In A Vigorously Contested DVRO Proceeding Was Proper

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Lower Court Did Consider Ex-Wife’s Ability To Pay, Ordering It Be Paid $5,000/Month.                Family law litigants and practitioners should pay attention to how Family Code section 271 sanctions for failing to settle family law matters can be painful and a game changer as far as a litigant’s financial well-being.  Marriage of Detrick, Case No. […]

Discovery, Sanctions: Discovery Sanctions Reversed Where Moving Party Failed To Comply With Late Discovery Motion Dictates After The Discovery Cut-Off Date And Before Trial

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

CCP §§ 2024.020, 2024.050 Were Not Complied With, And That Was Prejudicial.                In Cooke v. Tayac, Case No. A170044 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 12, 2024) (unpublished), defendants moved for discovery sanctions after the discovery cut-off and formal close of discovery.  The lower court granted the defense motion for sanctions in the amount of

Discovery, Sanctions: Appellate Court Determines That Litigant Not Filing A Written Opposition To A Discovery Sanctions Motion Is Not Guaranteed A Right To Oral Argument

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Nothing In The Discovery Sanctions Or Other Law Mandates That Result.                A cross-complainant in Bogota Corp. v. Seiden, Case No. B332296 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) had discovery sanctions imposed for deficient special interrogatory responses after filing no written opposition to the discovery sanctions motion.  On appeal, he argued that he

Sanctions: CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Of $7,500 Reversed On Multiple Grounds

Cases: Sanctions

Case Is A Primer On Procedural And Substantive Requirements To Meet Under 128.5.                In Ramirez v. Ramirez, Case No. B336369 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 18. 2024) (unpublished), appellant in a probate case obtained a reversal of a $7,500 CCP § 128.5 sanctions award in favor of respondent with respect to appellant’s request to

Family Law, Retainer Agreements, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Litigant Not Given Safe Harbor Notice/OSC Notice That The Sanctions Response Was Sanctionable

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions

Also, We Learn New Things All The Time—Contingency Agreements In Family Law Proceedings Are Against Public Policy.                Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting on two points:  (1) it reversed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against a litigant based on litigant’s response to a

Civil Rights, Sanctions: 4/3 DCA Reverses $98,852 Sanctions Award Under CCP § 128.7 After Concluding That Plaintiff Successfully Defeated Summary Judgment Motion On ADA And Related Claims

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions

For ADA/Disability Practitioners, A Disabled’s Successor May Have Standing To Pursue ADA And Related Claims For Injunctive Relief.                In Saurman v. Peter’s Landing Property Owner, LLC, Case No. G061561 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 26, 2024) (published), the Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment grant and $98,852 CCP § 128.7 sanctions award against

Discovery, Sanctions: $9,495 In Sanctions Against Client And Her Attorney For Failing To Reasonably Meet And Confer On Discovery Disputes Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Unpublished Opinion Has A Discussion On What Not To Do In The Meet And Confer Battles.                In Estate of Ambrose-Gordon, Case Nos. A169189 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 24, 2024) (unpublished), a probate litigant and her attorney were sanctioned $9,495 in discovery sanctions for failing to reasonably meet and confer with the

Sanctions: $35,000 Sanctions Order Against Plaintiff’s Counsel Affirmed After Lower Court Dismissed Frivolous Minimum Wage Hour Claims

Cases: Sanctions

Defense Counsel Did A Wise Thing:  Reduced $150,000 Prior Request Down To $35,000 In Its Reply Brief—Getting The Lower Ask In Toto.                Baptiste v. Ralph Grocery Co., Case No. D082554 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2024) (unpublished) is a good example of prudent judgment exercised by defense counsel.  The case involved a CCP

Discovery, Sanctions: $10,000 Discovery Sanctions Against Clients’ Ex-Attorney Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Substitution Out Prior To Discovery Hearing Did Not Preclude The Sanctions Award, With Appealing Attorney Chided For Incivility.                Sometimes attorneys just need to “take their lumps” for discovery abuse, whether inspired by the client, counsel, or both to some degree.  Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc., Case No. G061829 (4th Dist., Div.

Sanctions: No Legal Entitlement Allows Fee Recovery For Unjust Enrichment Under A Settlement Agreement

Cases: Sanctions

No Independent Bad Faith Shown, So Not Another Basis For Fee Recovery.                As we have posted before, you must have a legal entitlement for fee recovery.  Professional Tax Appeal v. Beverly Gemini Investments Corp., Case No. B321119 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 26, 2024) (unpublished) demonstrates that very well.                The essence of the

Scroll to Top