During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Sanctions

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v. Gray

by Jan T. Chilton |

A sanctions motion under either CCP 128.5 & 128.7 must be served on the party from whom sanctions are sought at least 21 days before the motion is filed in court in order to give that party time to rectify the allegedly sanctionable conduct.  Read More

Huang v. Hanks

by Jan T. Chilton |

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss as frivolous plaintiff’s 31 proceedings against prominent persons whom he claimed were harassing him. Read More

In re Westwood Plaza North (Erde v. Bodnar)

by Jan T. Chilton |

Different deadlines apply to seeking double costs and attorney fees for a frivolous appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 38; a bill of costs must be filed within 14 days after the opinion is filed, but attorney fees may be sought within 14 days after the time for seeking rehearing expires. Read More

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger

Exercising its inherent power, a federal court may award attorney fees as a sanction; however, unless criminal contempt procedures are followed, the sanction cannot exceed the amount of attorney fees the opposing party would not have incurred but for the sanctionable conduct.  Read More

San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego

In determining whether an action or tactic is frivolous for purposes of a sanctions award under CCP 128.5, the court should apply an objective standard, judging the merits of the action or tactic from a reasonable person's perspective; and that a complaint withstood demurrer does not prove it was not frivolous, since whether a claim is meritless must be evaluated… Read More

Osborne v. Todd Farm Service

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting terminating sanctions after plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly disobeyed in limine orders by referring to excluded evidence in his opening statement and questioning of witnesses, prejudicing defendants because jury might think their repeated, proper objections were hiding the true facts from the jury.  Read More