Sanctions, Successful Reconsideration, and Other Feb. 2024 Cases

The California Appellate Law Podcast

We discuss how to avoid appellate sanctions, and an unusually successful motion for reconsideration:

• $50k sanctions against appellant for blowing appellate procedure.
• Motion for reconsideration was untimely, but righteous. Trial judge did not take the Court of Appeal’s hint, so writ issued. (But the trial judge was right to let the writ issue.)
• Anti-SLAPPs don’t require a line-by-line list of allegations like regular strike motions. But there’s a split on this.
• Do you need appellate specialization credits? Maybe not as many as you think if you use Lisa Perrochet’s tip.

We also discuss a case on the Racial Justice Act, a rare case reversed for lack of substantial evidence, and a Public Records Act case.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Attorney who ignored appellate rules hit with $50k in sanctions in Mandir, Inc. v. Tiwari (D4d3 Mar. 27, 2023 No. G060437) (nonpub. opn.)
• Denying an untimely but meritorious motion for reconsideration was reversible error Contreras v. Superior Court (Champion Dodge, LLC) (D2d5 Feb. 16, 2024 No. B331737) [nonpub. opn.]
• Splitting from SLAPP precedent, appellate court holds you don’t have to do a line-by-line list of allegations challenged in an anti-SLAPP motion Miszkewycz v. County of Placer (D3 Jan. 25, 2024 No. C095426).
• Racial Justice Act motion requires case-specific facts, not mere statistical analysis Austin v. Superior Court (D2d2 Jan. 25, 2024 No. E080939)
• Read the full article at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here