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 It is MJB Development Group v. Diamond Escrow, Case No. D053158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 10, 2010) (unpublished).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
Delaware Decision Shows How Substantial E-Discovery Monetary Sanctions Can Be Imposed In Failure to Preserve Evidence Case. Because California just recently passed e-discovery statutes, we continue to monitor cases of interest in fee and expense awards in computer spoliation cases. Here is one out of Delaware. In Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates (Kates
Appellate Court Found No Abuse of Discretion, With Failure to Provide Transcript of Fee Motion Sealing Amount of the Award. In Marriage of Nair, Case No. C059661 (3d Dist. Dec. 29, 2009) (unpublished), the Third District found that the family law court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees of $75,000 to
Part 1 of 2: First Ten Grouping—Nos. 11-20. As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different
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
