Fourth District, Division Three Issues Sanctions for Appeal of a Moot Issue. Under “Cases: Sanctions,” we have discussed the standards governing imposition of sanctions for frivolous appeals, with In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 (1982) being the seminal case in the area. The next case, which had already […]
Second District, Division Six Affirms Sanctions Award. Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) is a statutory provision allowing an impacted party to move for reconsideration of an order within 10 days after service of notice of the order if there are new facts, circumstances or law that should be taken into
Fifth District Reminds Appealing Litigants and Appellate Counsel That They Should Not “Bait and Switch” or Simply “Vent Their Spleen” Before the Appellate Courts. The next case we discuss reinforces that appellate practice has different rules, with litigants needing to carefully assess whether they have some legal or factual errors of
Sixth District Affirms Fee Award Against Joined Parties. In our posts of July 7, 8, 17, and 23, 2008, we explored the attorney’s fees sanction codified in Family Code section 271. The next case involves an interesting twist: fee sanction awards against joined, nonspouse parties to a dissolution case.
Fourth District, Division Two Reverses Fee Awards Against Defendants and Their Counsel. Defendants and their counsel lost a motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel in an unlawful detainer trial. The trial court ordered that losing defendants and their counsel, jointly and severally, pay plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees of $8,776.25, as sanctions, under Code
Lombardo and Qualcomm Typlify Cases Sustaining Substantial Fee Awards in E-Discovery Disputes. About a year ago, LiveOffice, an on-demand messaging security provider, released these fascinating findings based on a nationwide survey: · 53% of 400 IT managers and consumers admitted that they were not in position to meet federal
First District Reverses Fee Sanctions Award and Award to State Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, But Affirms 998 Award to State. This next case establishes that fee sanctions must have a firm basis in legislatively-authorized statutes (or implementing rules) that have solid due process protections. Relying only on inherent
Fourth District, Division Three Remands to Lower Court For Award of Sanctions under Section 271. We reviewed the fee shifting provision in Family Code section 271—which is considered to be akin to a sanction—in our July 7, 2008 post discussion of In re Marriage of MacIntyre and in our July 8,
Fee Sanctions Awards Under Both Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 and Family Code section 271 Sustained On Appeal. In another July 8, 2008 post, we discussed In re MacIntyre, a First District unpublished decision affirming an approximately $12,000 attorney’s fees sanction awarded under Family Code section 271. In the next
First District, Division Two Rejects Importation of These Requirements Into Family Code section 271. At last, we have a post for you family law practitioners on a fee award issue. Family Code section 271 authorizes fees/costs awards to the extent that a party frustrates the policy of
