Cases: Sanctions

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             In Kramer v. Dale, Case No. D077610 (4th Dist., Div. 1 September 24, 2021) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA […]

Sanctions: Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For Speculation And “Guesswork” Affidavit Filed In Election Fraud Suit, With Amount To Be Set In A Future Hearing

Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Sanctions: $17,427 In Sanctions Imposed In Connection With Second Special Interrogatory Objections Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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.

Appealability, Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: $4,900 In Monetary Discovery Sanctions Affirmed

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

However, Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Denied For Failure To Show The Appeal Was Brought For An Improper Motive.             In Lazo v. Keller, Case No. G058765 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 29, 2021) (unpublished), two plaintiffs separately were ordered by the lower court to pay $4,900 in monetary discovery sanctions to defendant.  Plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed

Discovery, Sanctions: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For $17,074 In Monetary Sanctions Against NonParty For Failure To Comply With Trial Court’s Discovery Order And For Order Requiring Further Production

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

The Trial Court’s Finding That Nonparty’s Amended Responses And Production Were Adequate And In Compliance With Its Discovery Order In Ruling On Plaintiffs’ Request For A Contempt Sanction Against Nonparty Sealed The Results.             Husband and wife plaintiffs – suing over two loans, one for $11,327 and one for $427,000, they had made to defendants

Sanctions, Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/7 DCA Reverses Sanctions Imposed Against Builder Defendants For Violation Of Stay Order Regarding A Development Project Of Four Homes In The Coastal Zone Of Venice.

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Stay Order Was Vague And Did Not Provide Builder With Information As To How It Was Supposed To Act Or What Conduct Would Violate The Stay.             In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B299331 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), two residents who opposed a development project consisting of four homes

Deadlines, Discovery, Sanctions: Class Action Debt Collector Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues On Appeal That Renewed Discovery Motion Was Untimely And 1/3 DCA Affirms Monetary Sanctions Of $8,400

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

The Trial Court Declared The Discovery Motion Moot When It Granted Summary Judgment To Plaintiff, But Motion Was Renewed After Remand, And Parties Were Returned To Same Positions They Would Have Been In If Plaintiff Had Defeated Summary Judgment In The First Instance.             In Timlick v. National Enterprise Systems, Case No. A160110 (1st Dist.,

Family Law, Probate, Sanctions: Lower Court Properly Sanctioned Putative Spouse’s Attorney $3,617.50 Under CCP § 128.7 For Filing A Frivolous Putative Spouse Petition

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

Putative Spouse Failed To Show She Had A Legal Marriage With The Respondent Under Indian Law, Based On A Res Judicata Finding In A Prior Conservatorship Petition Proceeding.             The problem for putative spouse and her attorney in Nijjar v. Nijjar, Case No. F078265 (5th Dist. June 10, 2021) (unpublished) is that they earlier lost

Sanctions, SLAPP: $8,734.24 Mandatory SLAPP Fee Award Affirmed, But The $16,178.35 Sanctions Award Against Plaintiff And His Trial Attorney Reversed

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Safe Harbor Provision Was Not Complied With.             Despite the conclusion that plaintiff’s complaint was totally frivolous in nature (agreeing with a lower court’s assessment to the same effect), a Second District panel reversed a $16,178.35 sanctions award against plaintiff and his trial attorney, under CCP §§ 128.5 and 128.7, based on not satisfying the

Discovery, Sanctions: $4,423 Discovery Sanctions Affirmed Against Plaintiff And Its Attorney On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Reduced Sanctions Were Awarded, But Excuses For The Losing Side Were Not Credited.             We would say that Heesung Investment, Inc. v. Karle, Case No. E074320 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 11, 2021) (unpublished) indicates that, like many other appeals, credibility reigns king.             This one involved reduced discovery sanctions of $4,423 against a litigant

Scroll to Top