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 This next case, Nguyen v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B321033 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 31, 2023) (unpublished), is a lesson for all litigators to meaningfully engage in meet and confer requirements before filing a discovery […]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 In Marriage of Bush, Case No. G061202 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 15, 2023) (unpublished), a family law judge issued $3,635 in discovery sanctions against wife, but the judge stayed any payment until a trial determined who owed what.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 In Kitami v. Sabrah, Case No. A164399 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 13, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff was hit with an adverse $6,900 discovery sanctions order.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
$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
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
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
Decision Also Has A Colorful Quote On A Confusing Appellant’s Brief. If a motion for reconsideration is meritless, frivolous, or filed in bad faith, the trial court may order sanctions against the movant pursuant to section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (d); Young v. Rosenthal
