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 Professional Tax Appeal v. Beverly Gemini Investments Corp., Case No. B321119 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 26, 2024) (unpublished) demonstrates that very well.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 In Timlick v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No. A165127 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 28, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $20,950 in attorney’s fees as a discovery “sanction” even though plaintiff’s notice of motion did not identify the party against whom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
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 In Arteaga v. California Restaurants, Inc., Case No. D082258 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 17, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions motion which was denied in a class action case, prompting an appeal.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Justice Bedsworth, in Maldonado v. Aluminum Precision Products, Case No. G061415 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2023) (unpublished), authored an opinion affirming a $5,676 attorney’s fees award from the defense having to oppose an improper CCP § 128.7 motion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
