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)
Third District Rejects Other Challenges to $1,000 Sanctions Award. Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 provides that a judicial officer has discretion to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1.500, payable to the court for any violation of a lawful court order by a witness, party, or party’s attorney if the violation
Case Also Addresses Other E-Discovery Issues of Interest. Although we usually review only California decisions, a recent federal decision has a nice summary of the most typical situations justifying imposition of costs or attorney’s fees in instances where there was spoliation of potential evidence during the discovery phase of a case or after the
First District, Division 3 Reiterates Requirement in Unpublished Decision. In Harpel v. Spina, Case No. A123315 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 14, 2009) (unpublished), defendants requested and were awarded sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 when defendants asked for them in a 128.7 motion that was joined for hearing with their demurrer
First District, Division 5 Affirms Discovery Sanctions Award Against Husband and Husband’s Attorney. In In re Marriage of Moses and MacCallum, Case No. A121057 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 13, 2009) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed joint sanctions of $2,000 assessed against husband and his attorney in a dissolution proceeding involving discovery abuses
A Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is Not the Same as a Violation of a Court Order. We suspect considerations of professional honor and shame played a more important part than did the amount of the monetary sanctions involved in the next case, Conservatorship of Bibiana Becerra, Case No. D053519 (4th Dist.,
State Bar’s Decision that Discipline Was Not Warranted Does Not Move Court to Overturn Sanctions Award. The genesis of the next case was a heart-rending child custody dispute that could be a made-for-television movie. Unfortunately, it was real life rather than entertainment. Robinson v. Charlton A., A104663 (1st Dist., Div. 2, July 27, 2009)
Second District, Division Seven Affirms Denial of Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions We have written from time to time about tort of another and section 1021.6 as bases for attorney’s fees. Justice Perluss, author of a 3-0 opinion, has written a conveniently concise primer on the subjects. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
