Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: Litigants’ Attorney and Litigant Properly Sanctioned For Failure To Have A Person With Settlement Authority Participate In Court-Ordered Mediation

Cases: Sanctions

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 […]

Discovery Sanctions: $2,500 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Nothing Showed Attorney Advised Client’s Failure To Appear At Deposition

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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      In Scarola v. Dedicated Talent Agency (Pettigrew), Case No. B220482 (2d Dist., Div. 8 August 13, 2010) (unpublished), attorney for an apparently uncooperative cross-complainant was sanctioned $2,500 after her client failed to appear for a deposition in New York (even though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

Costs and 998 Expert Witness Fees: Court Of Appeal Affirms Most Of Trial Court Decision Awarding Routine Costs, Denying Expert Witness Fees, and Denying Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

First District, Division 5, Except for a $49 Adjustment, Tells Everyone to Go Home But For a Minor $1,000 Appellate Sanctions.      Salvio Street, LLC v. Lee, Case Nos. A122408/A123080 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 29, 2010) (unpublished) is an interesting case, not just for the legal issues, but because it demonstrates how pragmatic appellate

Appeal Sanctions: Law Firm Pays $390,000 In Appellate Monetary Sanctions Relating To Ninth Circuit Appeal In Nicaraguan Banana Dispute With Dow Chemical

Cases: Sanctions

  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

Costs: Government Entity Entitled To Award Of Routine Costs, Even If Verification Does Not Exactly Track The Statute

Cases: Costs, Cases: 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

Sanctions: $247,397.28 Fee and $10,808.76 Cost Awards Affirmed Against Attorney As Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 In Copyright Infringement Case

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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

Family Law: Section 2031 Fee Denial Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  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

FRCP Rule 11: Plaintiffs’ Withdrawal Of Claims By A Dismissal Without Prejudice, Through Service of A Motion to Amend Adding Other Claims, Satisfied Rule 11 Safe Harbor

Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top