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 […]
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 Nov. 9, 2010) (unpublished) does
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 In Marriage of Booth, Case No. A127140 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished), wife’s
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
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.
Federal Magistrate Judge Issues Such An Order, Finding It To Be Within the Ambit of Civil Contempt Discovery Sanctions. Here is a very interesting e-discovery sanctions order fashioned by a federal magistrate who did more than enter a default judgment as to a liability on a copyright infringement count against corporate defendant and its
$113,667 Rule 11 Sanctions Award Against Plaintiffs and His Attorneys Falls as a Result. Although we do not venture out of California that often, here is an interesting recent decision about a vacated sanctions award under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 that comes out of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Substantial Justification for Motion to Quash Subpoenas Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides for an award of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees to a party making or opposing a motion to quash a subpoena if his/her actions were made in bad faith or undertaken without substantial justification. Usually,
L.A. Local Rule, Based on CCP § 575.2(a), Authorizes Sanctions For Violation of Local Rules. If you are ordered to appear in a mediation, do it (obviously)! However, an attorney must make sure that he/she has a client representative with settlement authority when representing a corporate or public entity client present or on stand
Second District, Division 8 Believes Attorney Was Blameless Under the Circumstances. In Scarola v. Dedicated Talent Agency (Pettigrew), Case No. B220482 (2d Dist., Div. 8 August 13, 2010) (unpublished), attorney for an apparently uncooperative cross-complainant was sanctioned $2,500 after her client failed to appear for a deposition in New York (even though defense counsel
