Case Is A Primer On Procedural And Substantive Requirements To Meet Under 128.5. In Ramirez v. Ramirez, Case No. B336369 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 18. 2024) (unpublished), appellant in a probate case obtained a reversal of a $7,500 CCP § 128.5 sanctions award in favor of respondent with respect to appellant’s request to
Also, We Learn New Things All The Time—Contingency Agreements In Family Law Proceedings Are Against Public Policy. Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting on two points: (1) it reversed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against a litigant based on litigant’s response to a
For ADA/Disability Practitioners, A Disabled’s Successor May Have Standing To Pursue ADA And Related Claims For Injunctive Relief. In Saurman v. Peter’s Landing Property Owner, LLC, Case No. G061561 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 26, 2024) (published), the Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment grant and $98,852 CCP § 128.7 sanctions award against
Unpublished Opinion Has A Discussion On What Not To Do In The Meet And Confer Battles. In Estate of Ambrose-Gordon, Case Nos. A169189 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 24, 2024) (unpublished), a probate litigant and her attorney were sanctioned $9,495 in discovery sanctions for failing to reasonably meet and confer with the
Defense Counsel Did A Wise Thing: Reduced $150,000 Prior Request Down To $35,000 In Its Reply Brief—Getting The Lower Ask In Toto. Baptiste v. Ralph Grocery Co., Case No. D082554 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2024) (unpublished) is a good example of prudent judgment exercised by defense counsel. The case involved a CCP
Substitution Out Prior To Discovery Hearing Did Not Preclude The Sanctions Award, With Appealing Attorney Chided For Incivility. Sometimes attorneys just need to “take their lumps” for discovery abuse, whether inspired by the client, counsel, or both to some degree. Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc., Case No. G061829 (4th Dist., Div.
No Independent Bad Faith Shown, So Not Another Basis For Fee Recovery. As we have posted before, you must have a legal entitlement for fee recovery. Professional Tax Appeal v. Beverly Gemini Investments Corp., Case No. B321119 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 26, 2024) (unpublished) demonstrates that very well. The essence of the
Court Of Appeal Observed That Cross-Defendant’s Frivolous Motion To Quash Was Sanctionable, But Remanded So The Technicality Could Be Cured. Do not think that you can make factual misstatements or concealments in a motion to quash for lack of personal service; both trial and appellate courts will find this behavior sanctionable. That is
General Discovery Statutes Did Not Justify The Reversed Result, And The Absence Of An Order Did Not Support Sanctions Under CCP § 1987.2. Although discovery sanctions are generally affirmed under an abuse of discretion standard, that is not always the case against third parties because different standards apply. Agnone v. Agnone, Case
Form Does Matter When It Comes To Due Process. In Timlick v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No. A165127 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 28, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $20,950 in attorney’s fees as a discovery “sanction” even though plaintiff’s notice of motion did not identify the party against whom the discovery sanctions
