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
Second District, Division Three Decides Sanctions Unwarranted Because The Underlying Conduct Was Not Egregious in Nature. In New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (Shanahan), Case No. B207661 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 10, 2008) (certified for publication), the Court of Appeal—in a 3-0 opinion authored by Presiding Justice Croskey—issued mandate to allow withdrawal and
Third District Affirms Sanctions Order of $43,678.42 Against Attorney and Her Clients. Our fellow blawg “The Complex Litigator” has an excellent November 25, 2008 post on Wallis v. PHL Associates, Inc., Case No. C056200 (3d Dist. Nov. 25, 2008) (certified for publication). We will not review the facts in-depth, because “The Complex Litigator” post
Seeking Party Does Everything Right, But Has Sanctions Award Reversed Based Upon Imposition on Wrong Persons. Nagy v. Willow Creek Community Services Dist., Case No. A118909 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 4, 2008) (unpublished) is an excellent primer on the procedural and substantive elements of obtaining an imposition of sanctions under Code of
Second District, Division One Finds No Abuse of Discretion In Denying Further Sanctions. In our October 14, 2008 post, we reviewed The Capital Gold Group v. Michael Thomas Media Group, a Second District, Division 5 decisions reversing a sanctions award because the notice of motion for sanctions failed to identify the object of
Second District, Division Five Reverses Discovery Sanctions Imposed Against Client and Its Law Firm. The next case is a good reminder that discovery sanctions motions need to be explicit in mentioning the persons against whom the sanctions are directed in the actual motion. Failure to be precise in this context may mean that an
First District is Not Amused and Concludes Appeal Represented the “Acme of Frivolity.” You know you are in trouble when the first sentence of an appellate opinion reads like this: “The time has come to put an end to appellant Astarte Davis-Rice’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for litigation—and her egregious waste of
Court of Appeal Observes that $1,000 Monetary “Cap” in CCP section 473 Only Applies to 473 Awardable Sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) authorizes a trial court to relieve a party from judgment taken against him/her through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court has discretion to allow relief
