In re Marriage of Stich

6 Citing cases

  1. Sprague v. Kekoa

    No. A122018 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Generally, the amount should reflect what is necessary to redress the ‘undue burden’ a frivolous appeal imposes on the legal system and respondent and to deter the same type of conduct in the future.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, supra, ¶ 11:135, p. 11-55, citing Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 33; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 78; Hersch v. Citizens Savings & Loan Assn, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1013.) The factors that may be considered in setting the amount of sanctions include the appellant’s net worth (Bank of California v. Varakin, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 1640; In re Marriage of Stich, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d at p. 78) the need for “discourage[ment of] like conduct in the future” (Pierotti v. Torian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 34-35), and the lack of any discernible deterrent effect of any previous sanction order (Papadakis v. Zelis, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1150).

  2. Banks v. Dominican College

    35 Cal.App.4th 1545 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Banks v. Dominican College (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1551 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 110] (Banks), the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of a university, upholding its decision to dismiss the plaintiff from a teaching credential program.

    This opinion constitutes a written statement of our reasons for imposing sanctions under Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at page 654. This appeal shows a disturbing similarity to the facts of previous cases in which the courts have been forced to award sanctions, including one of our prior opinions, In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75-78 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 919].) In Stich, as here, a determined litigant with no meritorious legal arguments went through a battery of retained lawyers, unfounded disqualification motions aimed at trial judges, and other similar vexatious maneuvers before proceeding in propria persona to prosecute a frivolous appeal for the apparent purpose of harassment.

  3. Kabbe v. Miller

    226 Cal.App.3d 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 36 times

    In some cases the court found the appeal was brought for the purposes of delay. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 919] ; Weber v. Willard (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1010 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 165].) Because Ms. Kabbe is the plaintiff in this action, delay is not a factor here.

  4. Schine v. Property Solutions International, Inc.

    B280452 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019)

    (Cf. Banks v. Dominican College (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1558-1559; Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 310-313; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75-78.) There is no indication in the record that Schine has any legal background or that he does not in good faith believe the merits of his case.

  5. Hedman v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC

    No. C079416 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 4, 2016)

    (Cf. Banks v. Dominican College (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1558-1559; Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 310-313; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75-78.) There is no indication in the record that either Hedman has any legal background or that they do not in good faith believe the merits of their case.

  6. Koresko v. De La Rosa

    F064375 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2012)

    (Cf. Banks v. Dominican College (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1559; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75-78; Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 310-313.)