Cases: Sanctions

Discovery, Sanctions: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Order Issuing $6,150 In Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure To Timely Respond To Two Sets Of Discovery Requests Served By Email.

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Defendant Did Not Claim Email Service Was Improper Or That Discovery Requests Had Not Been Received, And Did Not Demonstrate That It Acted With Substantial Justification Or That The Sanctions Were Unjust Or Unreasonable.             Personal injury defendant appealed the trial court’s order issuing $6,150 in sanctions against it – $3,075 each for defendant’s failure […]

Sanctions: Imposition of Sanctions Under Former CCP § 128.5 Reversed Where Sanctions Imposed In 2006 Case Because Former Provision Applied to Pre-1995 Cases

Cases: Sanctions

Small Sanctions Award Reversed As To Plaintiffs, But Not As To Their Attorney Who Failed To Join The Appeal.             There is a lesson for litigation attorneys in this one, with respect to making sure you join an appeal by a client who is hit with statutory sanctions.             Plaintiffs and attorney were hit with

Family Law, Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms Trial Court’s Imposition Of $2,520 In Section 271 Sanctions Against Husband And Denial Of Husband’s Request For $100 Million In Sanctions Against Wife And Her Attorney

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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             In Marriage of Joe and Lee, Case No. H047392 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court awarded wife $2,520

Sanctions: $28,882.29 CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

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

Appeal Sanctions, Sanctions, Settlement: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Order Sanctioning Plaintiffs $10,000 For Failure To Execute Settlement Agreement

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Settlement

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

Discovery, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Affirms $7,550 Sanctions Award Against Defendant And Her Attorney

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Sanctions: Third District Reverses Deposition Discovery Sanctions Against Attorney Because Deposition Suspension Requirements Did Not Entail A Reasonableness Requirement

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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,

Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: Fifth District Denies Defendants’ Writ Petition Challenging The Trial Court’s Order To Produce Discovery Responses And Pay $13,680 In Sanctions.

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Sanctions: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Imposition Of $12,250 In Sanctions Against Plaintiff For Abuse Of The Discovery Process.

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top