128.5 Sanctions Motion Did Not Comply With Procedural Prerequisites, While Her Status As Former Counsel Did Not Give Proper Opportunity To Contest The Fees Awarded Under CCP § 396b. In Estate of Miller, Case No. G064476 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 6, 2025) (unpublished), the underlying matter involved a dispute between two siblings over […]
Even Though There Was No Time To Give The Safe Harbor Notice, Party Seeking Sanctions Needed To Ask For A Continuance Of The Motion Which Was Target Of Sanctions. In Junkers2Jewels, LLC v. McClaney, Case No. B339900 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2025) (unpublished), which was factually dependent, the appellate panel affirmed a
Reversal Was As A Matter Of Law, Based Primarily On Due Process Grounds. Wright v. Wright, Case No. B327043 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good reminder that a CCP § 128.7 filed motion must clearly articulate the grounds for sanctions and rebut the grounds in the targeted underlying motions
A Remand Was Ordered On The Civil Component And A Possible Penalty Payable To The Court. Talk about interesting issues; well, there was one considered by the 4/1 DCA in Razuki v. Malan, Case No. D082560 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished). There, plaintiff was assessed with a $200,000 sanctions award
Appellate Court Agreed That Plaintiff Did Not Have An Opportunity To Comply With CCP § 128.5 Safe Harbor Sanctions Provision, But Indicated It Should Be Followed Absent Exceptional Circumstances. In Chang v. Brooks, Case Nos. B320278 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 14, 2025) (unpublished), defendant’s SLAPP motion was determined to be properly
4/3 DCA Dismissed The Appeal As The Trial Court’s Interlocutory Order On The Discovery Referee Fees Was Not A Sanctions Order, Did Not Use The Word Sanctions, And Did Not Cite Authority To Impose Sanctions. The parties in Glickman v. Krolikowski, Case No. G064853 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 7, 2025) (published), stipulated to
Also, Appeal Sanctions Were Warranted For A Frivolous Appeal, But Matter Remanded To Trial Judge To Determine Appropriate Amount Given Conclusory Support For The Fee Request. In Plantation at Hayward I, LLC v. Plantation at Hayward I, LLC (Catanzarite), Case No. G062909 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2025) (published), plaintiff’s attorney losing in
Because It Involved An Amended Complaint, That Pleading Could Have Been Withdrawn. Attorney in Windsor v. Does 1-10, Case No. A167006 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 21, 2025) (unpublished) was hit with a CCP § 128.5 sanctions order because he failed to dismiss an amended complaint after a summary judgment was granted. The 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.
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
