California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from West Coast Development v. Reed, 2 Cal.App.4th 693, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 790 (Cal. App. 1992):
Where sanctions are imposed directly by the court, without benefit of motion from opposing counsel (see, e.g., Lind v. Medevac, Inc. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 516, 268 Cal.Rptr. 359), we can understand that the grounds for same might in some cases be obscure, absent a recitation in the order. Where, as here, sanctions follow a detailed motion by opposing counsel, fully argued and considered in an open hearing, it appears that the due process reasons for a written statement of grounds will have been satisfied, and the omission of the statement should be subject to harmless error doctrine. Further, where, as here, the appellate court has combed the record to determine on its own whether a sound basis exists for imposition of sanctions, the justification of the rule in terms of assisting the appellate court in its review seems undermined. The appellate decision itself now constitutes an exhaustive statement of reasons justifying the sanctions, and therefore sending the matter back to the trial court for another hearing is unproductive.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.