In an unpub'd decision today, 1/3 imposes sanctions for a frivolous appeal
here.
- On our own motion, we impose sanctions of $8,500 against Tina and her counsel ... for filing a frivolous appeal.
- First, the appeal is objectively frivolous. As we have explained, Tina did not appear at the remedies phase retrial, and she did not object to plaintiffs’ proposed statement of decision and judgment; thus, at least one of her appellate contentions is forfeited. Her other arguments are barred by the law of the case doctrine or “devoid of factual or legal support.”
- Her briefs consist chiefly of summary recitation of the UVTA, with little analysis or citation to relevant caselaw.
- And in apparent disregard of our prior warning that relitigating issues decided against her in subsequent appeals may subject her to sanctions, Tina proffered an argument twice rejected by this court.
- Tina’s history of unsuccessful appellate litigation — together with this appeal’s indisputable lack of merit — demonstrates she has appealed solely to delay enforcement of the second amended judgment.
- We impose sanctions of $8,500 “to compensate the court for the costs associated with processing, reviewing and considering the appeal.”
