Cases: Sanctions

Family Law, Sanctions: Husband’s Dismissal of Joinder Complaint Involving Wife’s Brother Did Not Divest Lower Court Of Jurisdiction To Impose Sanctions Against Brother And In Favor Of Husband For Frivolous Motion Under Family Code Section 271

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

$58,400 In Sanctions Were Imposed.             In In re Marriage of Blake & Langer, Case No. B311966 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 10, 2022) (published), husband filed a joinder complaint against wife’s brother and wife’s father in wife’s dissolution action.  Wife’s brother filed a frivolous motion to disqualify husband’s attorneys.  Husband filed a Family Code […]

Discovery, Sanctions: 2/5 DCA Concludes $2.5 Million In Monetary Sanctions Awarded For Egregious Discovery Abuse, Under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030, Was Not Statutorily Authorized And Reverses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Citing Legal Precedent, Dissenting Justice Would Have Affirmed – Seeing No Basis For “The Majority’s Unprecedented Statutory Analysis.”             Nine months after plaintiff dismissed with prejudice its case in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, Case No. B310118 (2d Dist., Div. 5 October 20, 2022) (published), PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”) moved for monetary sanctions pursuant to

Appealability, Sanctions: $2,000 Sanctions Order Against Attorney For Filing A Second Amended Cross-Claims With New Claims Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

Prior Dismissal Of A Premature Appeal Did Not Retard Consideration Of This Appeal, Plus Be Careful To Observe Memorandum Page Limits!             Bush v. Cardinale, Case No. A158757 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 27, 2022; posted on Sept. 28, 2022) (unpublished) involved an appeal of a $2,000 CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against an attorney

Appeal Sanctions, Sanctions: $950 Sanctions For Violating Pre-Trial Preparatory Local Rules Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Sanctions

Panel Also Issues Cautionary Warning For Badly Written, Nonpersuasive Appellate Briefs In The Future.             The 1/2 DCA, in Shiheiber v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No A160188 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 25, 2022) (published), affirmed a $950 sanctions award against an attorney for violating local pre-trial preparatory filing rules under Code of Civil

Sanctions: CCP §§ 128.5 And 128.7 Sanctions Motions Are Noncompliant Unless Filed 22 Days After Service Of The Unfiled “Safe Harbor” Motion

Cases: Sanctions

4/2 DCA Followed Broadcast Music Opinion From Earlier This Year.             It looks like we are getting a gathering consensus from the intermediate appellate courts on the compliant timing for filing a CCP § 128.5 or 128.7 sanctions motion after service of the “unfiled, but served” safe harbor motion.  Agreeing with the conclusion of the

Laffey Matrix, Probate, Sanctions, SLAPP: Lower Court Did Not Err In Fixing SLAPP Defense Fees In Two Defendants’ Favor

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Also, A Probate Court Properly Sanctioned Attorney For Violating Local Rule Page Limitations.             In Tukes v. Richard, Case Nos. B307242 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 12, 2022) (published), plaintiff lost SLAPP motions against two defendants, with the lower court awarding mandatory prevailing party fees of $49,071.50 and $26,905, respectively, after making some

Sanctions: $11,300 In CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Affirmed Against Client’s Attorney Based On Relitigating Grounds Lost Before

Cases: Sanctions

However, Because No Improper Purpose Shown By Client Independent Of Following Counsel’s Advice, Sanctions Against Client Reversed.             Showers v. Matthews, Case No. A163900 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 29, 2022) (unpublished) is a reminder that CCP § 128.7 sanctions cannot be sustained under subdivision (b)(1) if the underlying conduct by a client was reliance

Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms Imposition Of Section 128.7 Sanctions Against Plaintiff Who Filed Second Amended Complaint With Factually And Legally Frivolous Allegations

Cases: Sanctions

Plaintiff’s Filing Of A Third Amended Complaint Did Not Render Defendant’s Sanctions Motion Moot Because Third Amended Complaint Was Filed After Defendant Filed Sanctions Motion, Not Beforehand During The 21-Day Safe Harbor Period             Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, an attorney or self-represented party makes an implied “certification” as to the legal and

Scroll to Top