Federal Court of Appeals Prefers Bright-line Rule; Also Reaffirms that Ability to Pay Is a Relevant Factor in Assessing Rule 11 Sanctions. Although we usually stick to California cases, we discuss a colorfully written decision by the Seventh Circuit on wealth/ability to pay as a factor to be considered when assessing attorney’s fees as […]
Sixth District Vacates $730,466.10 Default Judgment and Reinstates Defendant’s Answer. The next case is a good example of the POOF! principle. Plaintiff obtained a $730,466.10 default judgment against defendant, set up by the trial court’s grant of terminating sanctions for failure to respond to discovery requests. The only problem is that the record did
Court of Appeal Affirms Substantial Fee Award, But Reverses CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions. As our Mission Statement warns, attorney’s fees can make or break a litigant given the high costs of taking a case to verdict or decision. The next litigant learned this message all too well, when a substantial fee award was affirmed
Second District, Division 3 Calls Into Question Whether Defense Needs to Answer Some Personal Injury Questions in Many Cases. Discovery is the bane of most litigators’ existence. It is freely allowed (subject to certain limitations)—vacillating from tedious and time consuming (at one pole) to burdensome and extremely expensive (at the other side of the
Fifth District Vacates $6,000 in Sanctions Against Wife. The beginning sentences of In re Marriage of Grady and Britten, Case No. F054668 (5th Dist. Feb. 17, 2009) (unpublished) are ominous in tone: “Arbitration typically is viewed as a relatively fast, inexpensive way to resolve disputes. This view assumes the existence of a clear and
Second District, Division 1 Sustains Substantial Sanctions Award on Appeal. Sanctions can sting. The next case shows it–and we bloggers are still smarting from having read the case. BCX International, Inc. v. York, Case No. B198375 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 10, 2009) (unpublished), briefly put, involved a Massachusetts corporate plaintiff that, during
Court of Appeal Reverses $15,611.50 in 128.7 Sanctions Because “Safe Harbor” Papers Were Not Identical to Filed 128.7 Motion Papers. In a lengthy but informative unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division One affirmed and reversed some sanctions components assessed against a plaintiff who was defensed through demurrer and summary judgment law-and-motion proceedings in his
California Supreme Court Follows Trope v. Katz in the Section 128.7 Context. Today, the California Supreme Court in Musaelian v. Warner, Case No. S156045 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Jan. 15, 2009) decided that Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 does not authorize sanctions in the form of an award of attorney’s fees to self-represented
First District, Division 4 Requires Attorney To Pay Opposition’s Fees In Order to Obtain Relief From Attorney’s Gross Neglect. Most of us are familiar with Code of Civil Procedure section 473, California’s relief statute that allows trial courts considerable discretion in granting relief from attorney’s neglect—including an award of fees for granting relief under
Second District, Division Two Discusses Aggregation Appealability Rule and Litigant’s Discovery Obligations. The next case we discuss has an interesting discussion of the aggregation appealability rule (sanctions order must exceed $5,000) and a litigant’s discovery obligations (even an alter ego defendant must provide discovery information of which he is aware, even if the defendant
