This one is mainly for the practitioners.
Richard Foust lost at court trial, in which he sued his former employer, San Jose Construction Company, for breach of contract. He appealed from the judgment. The court of appeal not only affirmed, but also held the appeal was frivolous and imposed sanctions. Foust apparently failed to provide an adequate record, made arguments for the first time in his reply, and generally made it impossible for the appellate court to adequately consider his appeal.
The court sanctioned Foust $6000, payable to the court, for the frivolous appeal, and awarded sanctions to San Jose in the amount of $8743.
The obvious takeaway - If you're going to appeal, it's best to designate an adequate record or the appellate court may make losing more expensive.
The opinion is Foust v. San Jose Construction Company, Inc. and the opinion is here.
WHAT'S NEW IN EMPLOYMENT LAW? Welcome to Shaw Law Group, PC's law blog. We will focus on employment law developments, particularly in California. Nothing in this forum should be construed as legal advice, 'cause it isn't. So, please consult your lawyer or hire us! (We typically represent employers, not employees). Also - this is a public website, so communications are not privileged. Copyright Shaw Law Group, PC © 2017. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Court of Appeal Explains Safe Harbor Period for Obtaining Sanctions
Most folks who read this blog don't care about sanctions. Like some of the courts. So, I'll make this quick. The employer settled a wrongful termination lawsuit with the employee. The employee tried to reopen the case four years after the settlement. The motion to reopen the case was frivolous.
The defendant filed a motion for sanctions because the plaintiff's motion was frivolous. To bring a motion for sanctions, you have to wait 21 days to see if the other side will withdraw its frivolous papers (called a "safe harbor"). But the court denied the plaintiff's motion too quickly to give the plaintiff the full 21-day opportunity to see the error of his ways and withdraw it. Therefore, the defendant could not successfully bring the motion for sanctions unless it (1) asked the court to delay the hearing on the frivolous motion. Or (2) the defendant could have gone into court and asked the court to shorten the "safe harbor" period. So, the defendant, victim of legally meritless litigation, has to spend more money and time changing the hearing dates too. Grrreatttt!
In fairness to the court of appeal that reversed the award of sanctions, the statute says what it says. But the statute is not a big deterrent to those who file legally frivolous papers. The Legislature probably will now go about amending it. Stop giggling.
The case is Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC and the opinion is here.
The defendant filed a motion for sanctions because the plaintiff's motion was frivolous. To bring a motion for sanctions, you have to wait 21 days to see if the other side will withdraw its frivolous papers (called a "safe harbor"). But the court denied the plaintiff's motion too quickly to give the plaintiff the full 21-day opportunity to see the error of his ways and withdraw it. Therefore, the defendant could not successfully bring the motion for sanctions unless it (1) asked the court to delay the hearing on the frivolous motion. Or (2) the defendant could have gone into court and asked the court to shorten the "safe harbor" period. So, the defendant, victim of legally meritless litigation, has to spend more money and time changing the hearing dates too. Grrreatttt!
In fairness to the court of appeal that reversed the award of sanctions, the statute says what it says. But the statute is not a big deterrent to those who file legally frivolous papers. The Legislature probably will now go about amending it. Stop giggling.
The case is Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC and the opinion is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)