But First District, Div. 5 Rules That Sanctions For Expenses Incurred Cannot Include Expenses of Taking Another Deposition. In a proposed class action, defendant deposed one of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s counsel, J. David Franklin, wrote on a legal pad and showed it to his client, the deponent. Counsel also instructed the deponent not to […]
Appellants’ Attorneys Are Reprimanded or Face 6-Month Suspensions from Ninth Circuit Practice. Quite a lot of news was generated about a dismissed case brought by some Nicaraguan plaintiffs about Dow Chemical relating to use of DBCP on banana plantations in Nicaragua. Nicaraguan plaintiffs appealed, with an appointed special master finding that monetary sanctions
Government Entity Entitled to Filing Fees as Costs, and Supplemental Memorandum Was Appropriately Filed. The Fourth District, Division 3, in a tandem pair of decisions authored by Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam, have confronted when governmental entities are entitled to recover filing costs even when no judgment is entered and that a costs memorandum
Ninth Circuit Finds Sanctions Were Warranted and Were Not Excessive in Nature. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows a district judge to sanction an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously” for those excess costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred as a result of attorney’s conduct. Recklessness suffices under
Thirteenth Appellate Proceedings By Wife In Longtime Dissolution Action Ends in Affirmance. Marriage of Falcone and Fyke, Case No. H033619 (6th Dist. May 28, 2010) (unpublished) is the 13th appellate proceeding initiated by wife, the respondent in a longtime marital dissolution action. Wife moved for a needs-based award of attorney’s fees under Family
Ninth Circuit So Holds in 2-1 Decision, Drawing a Sharp Dissent. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) has a safe harbor by which a party may deflect exposure if it timely withdraws claims identified by the opponent within 21 days after service of the safe harbor request. At issue before the Ninth Circuit was
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds The Only Timely-Filed Declaration Was Devoid In Setting Forth The Attorney Work Performed Or Credible Fee Total to Support the Award. The next case teaches that, after service of the CCP § 128.7 “safe harbor” motion, if you then file the motion after noncompliance by the putatively sanctionable party/attorney,
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Summary Judgment Grant Did Not Divest Trial Court of Jurisdiction to Rule on Previously Served 128.7 Sanctions Motion. The next case reminds all litigators that some client control becomes necessary when a plaintiff contradicts the main theory of his/her complaint at a deposition. Sanctions frequently will result unless
In our October 19, 2009 post, we reported on the $20,000 sanctions award imposed against Orly Taitz by U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land in one of the “birther” cases. We can now report that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions order, finding the arguments on appeal to be “unpersuasive” in
128.7 Sanctions Sustained Against Attorney Failing to Properly Appeal. The next sanctions case has a couple of valuable lessons. It is MJB Development Group v. Diamond Escrow, Case No. D053158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 10, 2010) (unpublished). Lesson #1—a sanctioned attorney must appeal the sanctions award. Although attorney’s client also appealed, this
