Order Can Be Based On An Oral Pronouncement. Plaintiff’s attorney in Marriage of Stupp and Schilders, Case Nos. A161177 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 25, 2022) (unpublished) was hit with a $1,050 sanctions order under CCP § 177.5, which authorizes a judicial officer to impose monetary sanctions “for any violation of a […]
Husband’s Conclusory Assertions Of Trial Court Error With No Record On Appeal, No Supporting Argument Nor Legal Authority, And His Failure To Have Followed Statutory Procedure In The Lower Court Doomed His Appeal. In Marriage of Joe and Lee, Case No. H047392 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court awarded wife $2,520
Plaintiff Made A Plausible, Nonfrivolous Argument That The Statute Of Limitations Did Not Bar An Action. In Kumar v. Ramsey, Case No. C092610 (3d Dist. Nov. 29, 2021) (published), plaintiff was socked with CCP § 128.7 sanctions of $28,882.29 because the lower court believed that the action clearly was time barred under the applicable
The Record Reflected That The Parties Agreed In Open Court To Put The Oral Settlement Agreement In Writing And That Deadlines For Payment Of Settlement Funds Would Be Triggered By Full Execution Of The Written Settlement Agreement. In Tricoast Builders v. Frederick, Case No. B307825 (2d Dist., Div. 6 October 18, 2021) (unpublished), homeowner
Unpublished Opinion Has Good Discussion Of Discovery Sanctions Burdens And Need To Reasonably Engage In Meet And Confer Discovery Sessions. Price-Simms, LLC v. Gallegos (Fry), Case No. A160893 (1st Dist. Div. 1 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court affirmed a $7,550 discovery sanctions against defendant and her attorney (the
But Unique Facts, So Do Not Think You Can Suspend Without Repercussions. Because we have to report on cases as we come upon them, we will say that Mason v. YD Window, Inc., Case No. C091415 (3d Dist. Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished) is a little hard to decipher, but we will try. In essence,
Defendants’ Filing Of The Writ Petition Was Wholly Without Merit And, Under The Standards Set Forth In Flaherty, Was Frivolous And Filed Solely To Cause Delay – Warranting $6,965.00 In Sanctions Pursuant To California Rules of Court, Rule 8.492. After defendants failed to provide discovery responses for over three years, the trial court granted
Plaintiff Was Not Substantially Justified In Initially Providing Objection-Only Responses And Failed To Meet His Burden In Showing An Abuse Of Discretion In The Trial Court’s Finding That Defendants’ Sufficiently Engaged In Meet And Confer Efforts. In Kramer v. Dale, Case No. D077610 (4th Dist., Div. 1 September 24, 2021) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA
Opinion Has Some Eloquent Reasoning On Fiduciary Duties/Officer Of The Court Functions By Lawyers. We do not like to take political stances in this blog, and this post is no exception. We have posted plenty of blogs, both pro and con, relating to court disputes involving former President Donald Trump. However, U.S. District
The Second Special Interrogatories Were Duplicative Of First Special Interrogatories To Which No Motion To Compel Was Made, So The Lower Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Award Sanctions The Second Time Around. We post on this one to share a nifty older case for litigators embroiled in discovery battles to keep in their back pockets.
