Justice Perren References The Pierian Spring In His Authoring Of The Opinion. Here is how the opinion in Ben-Yashar’el v. Kirschbaum, Case No. B315184 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 15, 2022) (unpublished) starts out: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste […]
Also, A Probate Court Properly Sanctioned Attorney For Violating Local Rule Page Limitations. In Tukes v. Richard, Case Nos. B307242 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 12, 2022) (published), plaintiff lost SLAPP motions against two defendants, with the lower court awarding mandatory prevailing party fees of $49,071.50 and $26,905, respectively, after making some
However, Because No Improper Purpose Shown By Client Independent Of Following Counsel’s Advice, Sanctions Against Client Reversed. Showers v. Matthews, Case No. A163900 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 29, 2022) (unpublished) is a reminder that CCP § 128.7 sanctions cannot be sustained under subdivision (b)(1) if the underlying conduct by a client was reliance
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
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 –
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
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
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,
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
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
