Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Re: frivolous

You are right that this makes no sense. CCP section 128.6 does not take effect until January 1, 2003. Section 128.7 currently fills a similar role.

I don't see how a judge who awarded you damages could justify calling your suit frivolous -- you actually won, which seems to preclude such a finding. Could it be that you were sanctioned for tactics you employed during the case? This is hard to imagine, but it is at least a plausible explanation of what happened.

An appeal from a small claims judgment takes the form of a trial de novo (e.g. a trial as if the small claims judgment never was entered) in the municipal court. If your neighbor's cross-complaint was actually a separate action, you may be able to appeal that judgment without disturbing the award in your favor.

Attorneys who are willing to handle a muni court trial will expect to be paid for their time, and no one is going to do it for a contingency fee based on such a small amount. In other words, it may cost you more than it's worth, and you might want to go it alone.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you in more detail if you like.

Edward Hoffman

Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

11620 Wilshire Boulevard, #340