But Appellate Court Has Harsh Word For Appellant’s Counsel On It Attempting To Argue The Merits Of A Nonappealable Discovery Ruling. In Tedesco v. White, Case No. G061197 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 27, 2023) (published), a tedious conservatorship battle, appellant appealed a $6,000 sanctions award against litigant and their counsel, jointly and severally, […]
It Is Appealable From A Final Judgment, Although There Is A Split In DCA Thinking On The Issue. In Arteaga v. California Restaurants, Inc., Case No. D082258 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 17, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions motion which was denied in a class action case, prompting an appeal.
Defense Requested $8,000 In Fees As Sanctions, But Lower Court Awarded Less. Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, in Maldonado v. Aluminum Precision Products, Case No. G061415 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2023) (unpublished), authored an opinion affirming a $5,676 attorney’s fees award from the defense having to oppose an improper CCP § 128.7 motion
Client Had No Clear Notice Of A Violation. Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, regrettably, had to author a 4/3 DCA opinion on a $5,771.25 sanctions award against plaintiff and her attorney relating to a dispute on whether a local pre-trial issues conference had to be held in-person or remotely. (The trial court concluded that plaintiff
The Justification Was For A Failure To Meet And Confer Prior To Filing Motions To Compel. This next case, Nguyen v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B321033 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 31, 2023) (unpublished), is a lesson for all litigators to meaningfully engage in meet and confer requirements before filing a discovery
Discovery Sanctions Were Vacated, With Litigant Also Substantially Complying With Document Production Requirements. Plaintiff and his counsel were sanctioned $910 for misusing the discovery process, in Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster), Case No. B321229 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 31, 2023) (published), because plaintiff failed to specify what documents were being produced in the
Discovery Sanctions Was An Independent Monetary Judgment Subject to Post-Judgment Enforcement. In Marriage of Bush, Case No. G061202 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 15, 2023) (unpublished), a family law judge issued $3,635 in discovery sanctions against wife, but the judge stayed any payment until a trial determined who owed what. However, the monetary sanction
Case Does Raise How One Can Ever Get Sanctions In This Area In A Normal Case. We understand that CCP § 128.7 sanctions need to follow strict procedural steps. However, motions for reconsideration usually proceed along an expedited timeline, although in a particular case they may go along a more prolonged regular law and
$6,900 Was The Sanctions Order Amount. In Kitami v. Sabrah, Case No. A164399 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 13, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff was hit with an adverse $6,900 discovery sanctions order. But that order was after the case had been removed to federal court. As a result, it had to be reversed for lack
Statutory Provision Allows For These Awards Where An Ex-Spouse/Ex-Partner Fails To Satisfy His/Her Disclosure Violations In A Dissolution Proceeding. Family Code section 2107(c) allows a family law judge to award fees, costs, and sanctions for disclosure violations during a dissolution proceeding, with certain disclosure obligations triggered by the service of the divorce action. In
