Cases: Sanctions

Discovery Sanctions: Litigant Not Awarded Additional Sanctions Where Request Was Only Contained At The Conclusion of the Supporting Memorandum

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  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 […]

Discovery Sanctions Orders Against Counsel Reversed Because Notices Of Sanctions Motions Were Not Sufficiently Certain In Identifying The Objects Of The Sanctions Requests

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Defendant Given Relief From Default Judgment Properly Assessed With Payment Of $8,000 Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs As A Condition Of Relief

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Under Abuse Of Discretion Standard, Lower Court Did Not Err By Imposing Conservative Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Upon Wife

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Standard of Review

Fourth District, Division Three Rejects Hitting Husband With Six Figure Sanction and Commends Lower Court for Its Restraint.             Family Code section 271’s sanctions has been discussed in several previous posts:  July 8, 2008—In re Marriage of MacIntyre and In re Marriage of Falcon & Fyke and July 17, 2008—In re Marriage

Appellants and Appellate Counsel Are Sanctioned For Frivolous Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

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

Losing Administrative Mandamus Plaintiff Suffers Code Of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 Fee Sanctions For Filing An Untimely, Meritless Reconsideration Motion

Cases: Sanctions

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

Defendant Successfully Obtains Recovery Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs For Successfully Setting Aside A Default And Also Obtains Appellate Sanctions Based On Plaintiff’s Frivolous Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Sanctions

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

Joined Parties To Dissolution Proceeding Ordered To Pay Attorney’s Fees To Husband’s/Wife’s Respective Attorneys Under Family Code Section 271

Cases: Sanctions

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.     

Attorney’s Fees Awarded As Sanctions For Losing Disqualification Motion Were Unsupportable

Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top