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 Nagy v. Willow Creek Community Services Dist., Case No. A118909 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 4, 2008) (unpublished) is an excellent primer on the procedural and substantive elements of obtaining an imposition of sanctions under Code of […]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
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
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.
