First the court imposes $2500 in appellate sanctions here on a pro per attorney:
In this appeal, Albert has filed a 6,000-page appendix, a 65-page opening brief, a motion to augment the record, with exhibits, and a request for judicial notice, with exhibits. A large portion of the appendix consists of copies of “trial exhibits,” exhibits purportedly included on the pretrial exhibit list. Although Albert’s briefs do not indicate whether these exhibits were offered into evidence, she repeatedly uses them as “citations to the record” supporting her factual claims of conspiracy. That is, when she cites to the record at all, instead of simply making things up. Much of both the opening brief and the reply brief is devoted to an argument that tort liability can be based on statements made in a document filed with the court, as if the contrary rule was not one of the most firmly established principles of California law.
Albert is no stranger to the appeal process, having represented herself in some 12 appeals in this court alone. We have in the past articulated principles of appellate law and practice in the opinions in quite a few of these cases and admonished her for failing to follow these principles, but to no avail. This is a busy court, with many calls on its resources. Appellants with legitimate issues must wait to have them resolved while we deal with briefing replete with misrepresentations of the record and violations of basic rules of appellate practice, such as Albert has placed before us.
We notified Albert that we were considering imposing sanctions for her pervasive violations of the California Rules of Court relating to the contents of briefs and appendices. After considering her 120-page opposition, we now impose sanctions of $2,500.00.
[The MetNews's story is here.]
Next, in an anti-SLAPP appeal here, sanctions are not imposed, but could have been:
In view of the absence of a request for sanctions by PAAMCO and the general principles that sanctions for frivolous appeals “should be used most sparingly to deter only the most egregious conduct” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 651), and that “[c]ounsel and their clients have a right to present issues that are arguably correct, even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win on appeal,” we decline to consider sanctions on our own motion. (Id. at p. 650.) Nevertheless, we include this discussion to caution counsel; appeals for the purpose of delay are sanctionable misconduct
Posts
