WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME STRICT RULE HERE ON SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS APPEALS AS DISCUSSED IN THE US ARTICLE BELOW.
IN FACT, THE RULE ON DISCOVERY IN OUR RULES OF COURT SANCTIONS PARTIES WHO REFUSE TO DISCLOSE CERTAIN FACTS AND DOCUMENTS, AND THE CIVIL CODE AND THE APPEAL RULES IN OUR RULES OF COURT CONTAIN PROVISIONS ON MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND RELATED TORTUOUS MATTERS.
HOWEVER, THE COURTS HERE SEEM TO BE VERY LIBERAL IN PUNISHING PARTIES AND LAWYERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE BELONGING TO BIG LAW FIRMS, WHO ARE GUILT OF DILATORY TACTICS AND FRIVOLOUS APPEALS. SUCH BIG-TIME LAWYERS PREFER SUCH DILATORY TACTIC BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID HUGE FEES BASED ON HOURLY BILLINGS.
"x x x.
After protracted litigation in a probate matter was resolved in his favor, the trustee of an estate sued a trust beneficiary and his law firm for malicious prosecution. The defendants made a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP law, asserting that the malicious prosecution claim was aimed at suppressing their free speech rights. The trial court denied the motion and awarded attorney fees to the trustee as sanctions against the defendants. The defendants appealed the denial of the motion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding defendants’ arguments frivolous and misleading and requiring the defendants to pay attorney fees and costs to the trustee and compensate the appellate court for the costs of processing the motion. (Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky, LLP (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 4 Dist., April 17, 2013).
x x x.
The appellate court also rejected the Attorney Defendants’ assertion that the
trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to Kendall
in order to sanction Scott. The appellate court found that the trial court had
performed its duty to support its finding with specific facts and legal authority
supporting the sanctions.
trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to Kendall
in order to sanction Scott. The appellate court found that the trial court had
performed its duty to support its finding with specific facts and legal authority
supporting the sanctions.
Finally, the appellate court imposed its own sanctions on the Attorney
Defendants, ordering them to pay Kendall $52,727.46 in attorney fees
and costs and to pay the appellate court $8,500 to compensate the
court for the cost “of processing a frivolous appeal.” The appellate
court noted that the state Supreme Court has held that appellate
sanctions should only be applied when an appeal is brought for an
improper motive or when it “indisputably has no merit.” Even considering
this high standard, the appellate court found that sanctions against the
Attorney Defendants were warranted given their egregious actions in
misrepresenting the record in the case, attempting to reargue already-decided
factual issues, and ignoring relevant law. The appellate court also stated
that the sanctions were needed to discourage future similar conduct and
enforce the standards of the legal profession, stating that “seven pairs of
legally trained eyes” had failed to spot the distorted, misleading pleadings
submitted to the court. The appellate court found that the sanctions were
also justified because the frivolous litigation had harmed taxpayers and
legitimate litigants by adding to the burdens of a strained and underfunded
court system.
Defendants, ordering them to pay Kendall $52,727.46 in attorney fees
and costs and to pay the appellate court $8,500 to compensate the
court for the cost “of processing a frivolous appeal.” The appellate
court noted that the state Supreme Court has held that appellate
sanctions should only be applied when an appeal is brought for an
improper motive or when it “indisputably has no merit.” Even considering
this high standard, the appellate court found that sanctions against the
Attorney Defendants were warranted given their egregious actions in
misrepresenting the record in the case, attempting to reargue already-decided
factual issues, and ignoring relevant law. The appellate court also stated
that the sanctions were needed to discourage future similar conduct and
enforce the standards of the legal profession, stating that “seven pairs of
legally trained eyes” had failed to spot the distorted, misleading pleadings
submitted to the court. The appellate court found that the sanctions were
also justified because the frivolous litigation had harmed taxpayers and
legitimate litigants by adding to the burdens of a strained and underfunded
court system.
x x x."
