Dana Commercial Credit Corp. v. Ferns & Ferns
Opinion
Opinion
Klein, J.
Respondent Dana Commercial Credit Corporation (Dana) seeks sanctions for a frivolous motion by appellants Ferns & Ferns, Barry Ferns and Karen Ragland (hereafter appellants) to recall the remittitur, which issued after dismissal of the appeal became final. ,
The essential issue presented is whether this court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions for the making of a frivolous motion on appeal, as contrasted with sanctions for the prosecution of a frivolous appeal.
This court has inherent powers requisite to its proper functioning, including the power to preserve order in its proceedings. Consequently, this court has the inherent power to impose sanctions for the filing of a frivolous motion in this court.
Factual and Procedural Background
1. Prior proceedings.
On November 14, 1997, Dana filed a legal malpractice action against appellants. Thereafter, Ferns, Garwacki & Adams was substituted in as Doe 1. On May 7, 1999, following the issuance of evidentiary and issue preclusion sanctions against appellants (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023, subd. (b)), the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Dana in the sum of $159,805. This appeal followed.