Court of Appeal Examines Various Provisions on Awarding Probate Fees and on Having Trust Pay the Fee Awards. In two somewhat companion cases, the Fourth District, Division 2 has done a nice job of examining various Probate Code statutes relating to the award of attorney’s fees and where they should be paid from. […]
Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses Sanctions, Ordering Reimbursement of Trial And Additional Discovery Costs. As indicated on prior posts on e-discovery, litigators must be attuned to both pretrial, trial, and post-appeal sanctions that can be awarded against parties failing to produce computer embedded information. Here is one where the offending party got a break,
Fourth District, Division 1 Did Vacate “Future Deposition” Sanctions. The next post is a very pragmatic one for litigators involved in discovery battles. Cutting to the chase, an attorney was hit with substantial fees (sanctions) for interposing over 300 objections during the course of some depositions. The Fourth District, Division 1 affirmed, although they
Second District, Division 2 Reverses $3,387.50 Sanctions Award Against Attorneys. Under various discovery statutes, the trial court has discretion to award discovery sanctions jointly and severally against losing litigant and/or their attorneys. However, attorneys have another defense in their quiver—the “my client made me do it” defense. The Court of Appeal is Manzanares
Second District, Division 4 Reverses Sanctions Award For Failure to Meet Technical Requirements. Here is one for all of you practitioners desiring to set up a CCP section 128.7 sanctions motion, correctly we might add. Defendant served plaintiff with a notice of motion for sanctions in the amount of $7,022.50 under CCP section
Appellate Panel Does Not Condone Sanctioned Conduct, But Found No Discovery Law Basis To Sustain the Award. As we have indicated before, attorney’s fees awards—whether mundane or imposed as a sanctions—must either have a contractual or statutory basis, depending on the type of award. The next case illustrates, even though the discovery conduct
Sixth District Provides a Good Lesson in Properly Timing Appeal of Discovery Sanctions Under $5,000. This next unpublished case, in a 3-0 unpublished decision from the Sixth District, is a good reminder on when the appeal of smaller discovery sanctions orders—under $5,000—is properly made. In Stough v. Klure, Case No. H034000 (6th
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sanctions Were No Abuse of Discretion. The next case is one in which the Fourth District, Division 3 affirmed monetary and terminating sanctions against either plaintiff’s attorney or plaintiff based on failure to respond to requests or failing to be candid in electronic discovery matters. This shows how one
District Judge Clay D. Land Issues Sanction in 43-Page Opinion. Mission Viejo attorney/dentist Orly Taitz—who heads the "birther" movement (trying to oust President Obama from the presidency based on the allegation that he did failed to produce a satisfactory birth certificate)—has been in the news frequently for her filing of federal court actions on the
Second District, Division 7 Overturns Sanctions Where Merits Hearing Was Heard 19 Days Into 21-Day Safe Harbor Period. Here is a good one for all of you Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 fans! The lesson from Li v. Majestic Industry Hills, LLC, Case No. B208404 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 8, 2009)
