$32K in appellate sanctions awarded

Here's an unpub'd appellate sanctions decision from 2/8 where sanctions of about $32K were awarded jointly and severally against appellant and appellant's counsel for pursuing a frivolous appeal.

"We find this is one of the rare circumstances in which sanctions are warranted. We therefore grant the motion and award a sanction of $31,947.50 for [Respondent]’s attorney’s fees on appeal."

To underscore the frivolousness of this appeal, the District violated numerous appellate rules, which suggested a lack of good faith and an intent to delay.

Perhaps most troubling, the District’s briefs on appeal do not once cite the record it provided.

[Respondent's appellate counsel] points out the District’s attorneys are experienced appellate counsel, so inexperience does not explain the District’s actions. This record demonstrates the District must have had only one real purpose in pursuing this appeal: to impose a costly delay. This appeal postponed the District from having to pay nearly $10,000 in sanctions while burdening [Respondent] with having to pay her attorneys three times that amount in order to defend it.

[Respondent] seeks $31,947.50 in attorney’s fees as a sanction, which includes 54.1 hours by appellate counsel at $475 per hour (a total of $25,697.50), and 12.5 hours at $500 per hour for trial counsel’s work on appeal (a total of $6,250). We find these amounts supported and reasonable, so we will impose a sanction of $31,947.50 on the District and counsel jointly and severally, to be paid to [Respondent]. (§ 907; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a).)

[See in the MetNews School District Must Pay $32,000 for Frivolous Appeal]

Also of note from yesterday, Retired Justice Mallano wins again on judicial salaries, here. [See in the MetNews C.A. Affirms Order to State for Back Payments to Judges: In Mallano v. Chiang II, Court Rejects Argument That Judge Berle Lacked the Power To Require Disbursements Where Complaint Only Sought Declaratory Relief. "Class members are identified in a footnote as:
 “(1) all California state judges of the Superior Court or justices of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal who were active since the commencement of fiscal year 2008-2009; (2) all persons who are receiving or since the commencement of fiscal year 2008-2009, have received benefits from JRS; and (3) all persons who are receiving, or have received benefits from JRS II based on a final compensation that includes salary paid at any time since the commencement of 2008-2009.”"]