Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: $8,836 In Various Sanctions Affirmed Against Plaintiff Losing Claims Through Demurrer Or Summary Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

Court of Appeal Reverses $15,611.50 in 128.7 Sanctions Because “Safe Harbor” Papers Were Not Identical to Filed 128.7 Motion Papers.      In a lengthy but informative unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division One affirmed and reversed some sanctions components assessed against a plaintiff who was defensed through demurrer and summary judgment law-and-motion proceedings in his […]

Relief From Default: Attorney’s Fees Must Be Awarded As A Condition Of Discretionary Relief Where Attorney’s Conduct Was Egregious

Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery Sanctions: $6,000 In Discovery Sanctions Affirmed Against Alter Ego Defendant For Failing To Respond To Written Discovery

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: Evidence and Adverse Jury Instruction Sanctions Not Allowed For Document Production Transgression Absent Failure To Obey An Order Compelling A Further Response

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: Attorney and Her Clients Sanctioned Under CCP Section 128.5 For Deliberately Revealing Trade Secret Despite Entry Into A Protective Arrangement

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions

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

CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions: Unpublished Decision Is A Primer On How To Seek Them And On Procedural Requisites For Their Imposition

Cases: Sanctions

  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

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

Scroll to Top