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 In In re Marriage of Moses and MacCallum, Case No. A121057 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 13, 2009) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed joint sanctions of $2,000 assessed against husband and his attorney in a dissolution proceeding involving discovery abuses […]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.
District Court Opts for Sanctions Rather Than Entering Astronomical Default Judgment. This one certainly caught our eye and illustrates how e-discovery sanction can involve steep reimbursement of significant attorney’s fees and costs. In Kipperman v. Onex Corp. (Kipperman II), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44457 (N.D. Ga. May 26, 2009), a district judge found
Fifth District Found That Absence of Sanctions Request in Motion for Reconsideration Meant the Award Violated Due Process. Frequently, we have discussed sanctions awards that are vacated because they do not comply with due process. Here is another one, occurring in connection with a successful defense reconsideration motion regarding a tardy expert witness augmentation.
Second District, Division 7 Requires Compliance By the Numbers. Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman, Case No. B209863 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 1, 2009) (certified for publication) involved a plaintiff wage/hour class member that brought an independent action against defendant Allstate and class counsel alleging negligence in the claim filing process. Allstate’s and
Fourth District, Division 1 Sanctions Party and His Counsel for Not Notifying It About a Bankruptcy Case with Automatic Stay Implications. The next case is not that remarkable for affirming a $96,000 award of fees to a receiver and his counsel, but reminds us that the trial court can equitably divide the fees against
First District, Division 3 Resolves Conflict Between CCP sections 1987.5 and 2020.510(b). A percipient nonparty witness was served with a deposition subpoena commanding him to give testimony and produce documents during the discovery process. However, the subpoena had no affidavit or declaration of good cause. Nonparty banked on the invalidity of the subpoena because
Second District, Division 8 Rejects Challenges to Fee Award. In Barba v. Anderson-Mota, Case No. B206213 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 24, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff’s attorney was two hours late in attending a noticed deposition of his client, after leaving a message he would be an hour late and then being inaccessible for
