Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms Imposition Of Section 128.7 Sanctions Against Plaintiff Who Filed Second Amended Complaint With Factually And Legally Frivolous Allegations

Cases: Sanctions

Plaintiff’s Filing Of A Third Amended Complaint Did Not Render Defendant’s Sanctions Motion Moot Because Third Amended Complaint Was Filed After Defendant Filed Sanctions Motion, Not Beforehand During The 21-Day Safe Harbor Period             Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, an attorney or self-represented party makes an implied “certification” as to the legal and […]

Family Law, Sanctions: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s $37,500 Attorney Fees Award, Which Included A $7,500 Deduction Based On Wife’s Conduct, Against Husband In The Form Of Section 271 Sanctions

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Trial Court Had Ensured Against Financial Burden On Husband By Ordering Payment Of The Sanctions Through $200 Monthly Increments, And Its Statement Of Decision Made Clear That The Trial Court Had Considered The Behavior Of Both Parties.             Family Code section 271(a) – the purpose of which is to promote settlement and encourage cooperation –

Probate, Sanctions: Sanctions Issued Against Beneficiary Contesting Trustee’s Account, Which Included $72,699 In Attorneys’ Fees, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

Appellant’s Conclusionary Statements Were Not Sufficient To Meet Appellant’s Burden To Overcome Deferential Substantial Evidence Standard On Appeal.             This next case provides a cautionary tale and affirms what we’ve said before – fee shifting statutes can be a real game changer.             Appellant in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, Case Nos. B294140/B299039 (2d Dist., Div. 6

Sanctions: 2/2 DCA Establishes A “Bright Line” Rule That A CCP § 128.5 Motion Cannot Be Heard Any Sooner Than 22 Days After Motion Service So The Full 21-Day Safe Harbor Period Is Honored

Cases: Sanctions

Also, The Appellate Court Denied Request For Substantial Appellate Fees Based On The Law Of The Case/Waiver Doctrines.             Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC, Case Nos. B304809/B306245 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 24, 2022) (published) has two interesting additions to jurisprudence in the appellate fees and 128.5 sanctions areas, tethered to the

Sanctions: Monetary Sanctions Of $11,562.50 Imposed Against Plaintiff’s Counsel For Frivolous Motion To Recall Remittitur To Clarify That SLAPP Defendants Were Precluded From Recovering Appellate Fees Because Each Party Was Ordered To Bear Its Own Costs

Cases: Sanctions

The 2/4 DCA Found That Any Reasonable Attorney Would Have Expected It To Follow Its Decision In Stratton Which Specifically Held That An Appellate Court’s Directive That Parties Are To Bear Their Own Costs On Appeal Does Not Preclude Award Of Appellate Attorney Fees.             In a previous appeal filed by both plaintiff and defendants,

Sanctions: 1/5 DCA Affirms $11,900 In CCP 128.5 and 128.7 Sanctions Against Defendants In Partition Action Who Pursued Quiet Title Despite Having Previously Lost Quiet Title Action At Appellate And Lower Levels

Cases: Sanctions

Pursuant To The Law Of Preclusion, Defendants’ Conduct Was Sanctionable Where They Filed A New Complaint, Based On The Same Facts, To Relitigate Issues They Had Already Lost Through Previous Litigation.             In U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Rosenblum, Case No. A161511 (1st Dist., Div. 5 February 23, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court issued Code

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

Scroll to Top