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well, there was one considered by the 4/1 DCA in Razuki v. Malan, Case No. D082560 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished).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 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 14, 2025) (unpublished), defendant’s SLAPP motion was determined to be properly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Because It Involved An Amended Complaint, That Pleading Could Have Been Withdrawn. Attorney in Windsor v. Does 1-10, Case No. A167006 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 21, 2025) (unpublished) was hit with a CCP § 128.5 sanctions order because he failed to dismiss an amended complaint after a summary judgment was granted.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 In Cooke v. Tayac, Case No. A170044 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 12, 2024) (unpublished), defendants moved for discovery sanctions after the discovery cut-off and formal close of discovery.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
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
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
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
