Discovery/Sanctions: In Pro Per Litigants Cannot Obtain Attorney’s Fees As Discovery Sanctions And Cannot Obtain CCP § 128.7 Sanctions

 

     We thank reader Kurt Yap for educating us on these two issues.

     What happens if you are an in pro per litigant and want to obtain discovery sanctions for the work you did (based on them being akin to attorney’s fees as if the work had been done by a retained outside attorney)? Answer: you can’t based on Argaman v. Ratan, 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1175 (1999), where the appellate court held that a party in pro per (although an attorney) cannot be awarded attorney’s fees as a discovery sanction.

     What happens if you are an in pro per litigant, defeat an action, and win a CCP section 128.7 motion? Can you get attorney’s fees for winning the sanctions motion? Answer: No, that too was foreclosed in Musaelin v. Adams, 45 Cal.App.4th 512, 514-515, 521 (2009).

Comments

[Kurt Yap]

I would appear that an In Pro Per can circumvent Argaman v. Ratan, 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1175 (1999) and Musaelin v. Adams, 45 Cal.App.4th 512, 514-515, 521 (2009) by use of (Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App4th 1015, 1020, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, -holding that self-represented litigants, whether lawyers or not, cannot recover fees as discovery sanctions, although they may recover reasonable expenses incurred”.)
Anotherwards the facts of the In Pro Per must align with "Opportunity Costs" forgone as a result of abusive discovery tactics taken by opposing party. Typically, the In Prop per must have definitive contractual evidence documented within a Motion on Motion, declaration and Memorandum to make it stick.