Cases: Sanctions

Discovery Sanctions: $2,265 Sanctions For Nonparty’s Failure to Appear At Discovery “Records and Appearance” Deposition Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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 […]

Family Law Awards: Duplicative Civil Proceeding To Family Law Matter Does Not Necessarily Justify Family Code Section 271 Sanctions

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Fourth District, Division 2 Upholds No Sanctions Award in Unpublished Opinion.      In our category “Family Law Awards,” we have surveyed many past decisions awarding fees against family law litigants based on Family Code section 271, which allows an award of fees as a sanction against a litigant that frustrates settlement, increases the cost of

Private Arbitration Sanctions: Second Circuit Finds Inherent Authority Under FAA To Sanction Attorneys for Losing Party In Arbitration Proceedings

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Ninth Circuit Apparently Agrees, Also.      We would like to thank Hon. Lawrence C. Waddington (Ret.), former Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who is now a neutral with JAMS, for contributing an April 21, 2009 post on enBanc, the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s blog, about a recent Second Circuit decision that has fee

ADA: Reversal Of Lawsuit Based On Lack Of Standing Requires Vacating Of Monetary Sanctions

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Sanctions Order.      In an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) case, a district judge dismissed a lawsuit based on plaintiff’s lack of standing and imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel for bringing a frivolous case. The Ninth Circuit reversed the standing determination, which also meant that the sanctions

Family Law: Wife Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Award Under Family Code Section 2030

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

First District, Division 3 Affirms Fee Denial; Wife Also Hit With $4,000 in Sanctions Under Section 271.      Ex-wife was married over 18 years to a successful attorney, who was apparently generous in both support payments and settlement equalizations in dissolution proceedings—at least according to the Court of Appeal. There were substantial assets to divide,

Sanctions: $1,857.50 Sanctions Against Insurer Vacated As Unauthorized Under Statute Or Court Rule

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Settlement

  Second District, Division 7 Reverses Award in Published Decision.      For years, insurance carriers have raised due process concerns to their participation in mediation and mandatory settlement conferences, although more and more court rules require their participation in these processes. However, the next case illustrates that carriers are not subject to “bad faith” settlement

CCP Section 128.7: Client Cannot Appeal Or Seek Writ Review Of Sanctions Assessed Solely Against Client’s Attorney

Cases: Sanctions

Client Is Not Aggrieved or Does Not Have Beneficial Interest for Purposes of Seeking Review of Attorney Sanctions Order.      Attorneys get socked with a $12,504 sanctions order under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 in construction defect litigation. Their client then appeals or seeks writ review of the adverse order. Result? Client has no

Fee Awards Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927: Seventh Circuit Holds That Attorney’s Wealth Or Ability To Pay Is An Irrelevant Consideration

Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top