Sanctions
A party may not submit a frivolous brief on appeal. Parties may, however, make arguments in good faith that the appellate court ultimately rejects, and appellate courts are often reluctant to impose sanctions for an argument that simply fails. However, if a party submits a frivolous brief or takes some other egregious action, the Courts of Appeal may impose sanctions in the form of attorney's fees payable to the other side or sanctions payable to the court itself. Bruce rarely asks for sanctions on appeal, but has often been successful in those rare cases when he does. Similarly, the trial court may impose sanctions on several grounds, and Bruce has handled appeals involving sanctions in both the Court of Appeal and the trial court.
Los Angeles Housing Outreach v. Medoff (B341160) (2025)
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division Four
Bruce successfully represented a landlord who evicted an unapproved subtenant. The appellate court also imposed $5,070 in sanctions against the subtenant's attorney for filing a reply brief containing numerous incorrect case citations generated by AI. The lawyer admitted she filed the brief without proper review and that the citations were not correctly used or summarized. The court found that she fundamentally abdicated his responsibility by submitting a brief where the majority of legal authorities did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
OpinionMasjedi v. Valdez (B340847) (2025)
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division One
Bruce successfully represented party who defeated an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial found the other party's motion was frivolous and awarded Bruce's client sanctions. The other party appealed. Bruce not only won on the merits, but the Court of Appeal also awarded Bruce's client additional sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
OpinionIn re Marriage of Badial & Gill (B316281) (2023)
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division One
Bruce represented the respondent on appeal in a post-judgment family law matter involving enforcement of a stipulated dissolution judgment. The trial court imposed sanctions under Family Code § 271 based on obstruction of a court-ordered property sale. The Court of Appeal affirmed the imposition of sanctions but reversed the specific amount and remanded for recalculation.
OpinionKaufman v. Spiegel (B143723) (2001)
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division Three
After successfully representing a husband in a family law case (details here), opposing counsel took proceeds from the sale of Bruce's client's house that were subject to a lien in Bruce's client's favor. He refused to turn it over to Bruce's client. Bruce filed a postjudgment enforcement motion against opposing counsel. The trial court denied Bruce’s motion to compel return of these sale proceeds subject to a lien. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the attorney had notice of the lien, ordered repayment, and remanded for reconsideration of sanctions against the attorney.
Opinion