Farley

Sino Century Development Ltd. v. Farley

Good Law
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 866·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1226·211 Cal. App. 4th 688
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 3, 2012No. B236912California4,768 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aldrich, J.

*691 Opinion

In this case, we must determine whether California Rules of Court, rule 2.30 1 permits a trial court to award attorney fees as sanctions for a rules violation. Rule 2.30(b) authorizes the court to impose reasonable monetary sanctions for violating a rule of court. Rule 2.30(d) also provides in “addition to the sanctions awardable under (b), the court may order the person who has violated the applicable rule to pay to the party aggrieved by the violation that party’s reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions or the order to show cause.” 2 The court imposed $81,461.13 in sanctions on appellants David L. Farley and his counsel, Menke & Menke, LLP (Menke), and declared a mistrial because appellants violated a rule of court that required notification of the automatic stay imposed by a filing in the bankruptcy court. 3 These monetary sanctions included attorney fees incurred by the aggrieved party as a result of the rules violation.

We conclude that rule 2.30 does not authorize full compensation of all attorney fees incurred as a result of a rules violation, but only authorizes the court to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.