2/2 awards appellate sanctions here:
It is clear to us from the actions taken by appellant on appeal and from appellant’s briefs that the appeals are frivolous. They are completely without merit and taken for the purpose of delay. We therefore award respondents the requested sanctions of $4,400.Then 2/2 has to deal with this here:
After reviewing plaintiffs’ briefs, it is virtually impossible to determine what occurred below and what they are challenging on appeal. The major problem is with the opening brief. A cursory review of the opening brief reveals that it does not provide us with the basic information we need to determine what is being challenged.Not to be outdone, 2/5 disposes of an in a single page here:
And then 2/5 knock's one out for lack of appealability here.Plaintiff, Shawn Damon Barth, appeals from a December 23, 2014 judgment of dismissal entered against him for failure to prosecute within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not demonstrated proper service on the California Supreme Court under California Rules of Court, rules 8.44(b)(1) and 8.212(c)(2)(C). Plaintiff was previously warned of the defective service as to his original opening brief when we ordered it stricken. [cite] On this ground alone, we have the authority to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1118 [“[N]othing in the rules precludes dismissal for failure to file a brief substantially in compliance with the rules after the appellate court has made an order striking one nonconforming brief with leave to file a new brief.”]; see Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 557.)
For more exciting appellate news, see Coin Toss Decides Which Advocate Will Argue Key Patent Case. (Spoiler alert: Seth Strykered out: Carter won the toss.)
Or perhaps this is exciting: The new (and much improved) 'Bluebook' caught in the copyright cross-hairs, about the battle between the venerable BlueBook and the upstart BabyBlue!