CLARK v. OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC., PART I
Award of attorney's fees as sanctions for violation of in limine order was neither within the court's inherent powers nor authorized by statute. Mutual agreement by parties to an in limine order will not authorize imposition of monetary sanctions as a remedy unless the agreement specifically so provides. Sanctions on counsel imposed under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 128.7 for falsely certifying through oral and written presentations to the court that there was evidentiary support for the complaint's factual allegations against a defendant after the trial court had granted motion in limine excluding much of plaintiff's evidence against that defendant, and that such allegations were not being maintained primarily for an improper purpose after that point, were error where sanctioned counsel presented sufficient evidence to avoid nonsuit. Where plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to avoid summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, and trial court made no findings that their claims were frivolous, action was brought with "reasonable cause," precluding award of attorney's fees and expert witness fees as costs under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1038. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to prevailing defendant under Sec. 998 where timely offer to pay each plaintiff $1,000 in settlement was reasonable because plaintiffs' case was based entirely on "shaky" circumstantial evidence.
Comments on CLARK v. OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC., PART I