Judge Erred in Imposing Sweeping Sanctions for Slight Delay

Thursday, June 18, 2026

Page 3

Court of Appeal:

Judge Erred in Imposing Sweeping Sanctions for Slight Delay

Opinion Says Party’s Missing Court-Imposed Deadlines for Submission of Witness Lists, Joint Statement Did Not Justify Order That Effectively Barred Him From Litigating Case Where Filings Were Within Local-Rule Timelines

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge abused her discretion in imposing sweeping issue and evidentiary sanctions against a party in a marital dissolution action who failed to comply with court-imposed deadlines for pretrial filings, including a witness list and joint statement, declaring that the penalties were out of proportion to the conduct where the late submissions were still within the local-rule timelines.

Acknowledging, in Tuesday’s unpublished opinion, that “[a] trial judge may adopt rules that apply solely to his or her courtroom” and has “authority to manage proceedings” through the imposition of sanctions for noncompliance, the court declared that the order must still be within the “bounds of reason” and the penalties must be “proportionate to the misconduct.”

Finding that sanctions imposed, which included limiting the issues to those raised by the other side in a timely-filed joint statement and restricting witnesses to the parties and those offering impeachment testimony, breached those bounds, Acting Presiding Justice Maurice Sanchez, writing for the court, said:

“Here, the trial court abused its discretion because the imposed sanctions were not tailored to the misconduct at issue.”

Divorce Proceedings

The question arose in the divorce proceedings between Jameson and Danielle Burmeister. Following a mandatory settlement conference in December 2022, Orange Superior Court Judge Sherri L. Honer issued a decree (referred to in the opinion as the “Standing Order”), which required the parties to complete certain tasks by designated intervals before trial.

The order effectively mandated that the parties exchange witness lists and exhibits by March 24, 2023 and file a joint statement by April 3, 2023. In the order, the judge declared:

“WARNING: Failure to comply with any portion [of] this order may subject the party…not in compliance to sanctions up to $1,500.00…Additional consequence may also apply – e.g., matter be taken off calendar or continued, limitations on introduction of witness testimony and/or exhibits, and/or issue and/or evidentiary sanctions.”

Jameson Burmeister failed to meet the timelines, serving his witness list and one-sided joint statement on his then-wife on April 7 and submitting the same documents to the court on April 10, among other tardy filings. The submissions complied with Orange Local Rule 709(D), which only demands that the materials be provided at least 10 calendar days before trial.

Failure to Comply

At an April 10 pretrial conference, Horner ordered, as sanctions, that the witnesses and the issues be limited to those raised in Danielle Burmeister’s joint statement.

At trial, the judge allowed the wife to seek so-called Epstein credits, or reimbursements to a spouse for separate property funds used to satisfy community obligations after separation, but barred the husband from seeking rent, or a “Watts charge,” for her exclusive use of the community home, saying:

“[Y]ou want to give a Watts charge to her for the fair rental value, and that was not raised—it wasn’t part of the issues that were raised by [Danielle] that we’re at trial for, so you’re not going there.”

Jameson Burmeister filed a pocket brief arguing that the sanctions were an abuse of discretion and violated his due process right to have “a fair and full opportunity to present competent, material and relevant evidence.” Horner rejected his assertions, and a final judgment of dissolution was entered in May 2024.

Tuesday’s opinion, joined in by Justices Thomas A. Delaney and Martha K. Gooding, declares:

“The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.”

Abuse of Discretion

Sanchez noted:

“Jameson argues the court abused its discretion by imposing issue and evidentiary sanctions instead of monetary sanctions, particularly where he complied with the Superior Court of Orange County, Local Rules….He also claims the court’s imposition of sanctions constitutes reversible error per se because Jameson was deprived of his day in court.”

Saying that “[w]e agree the court abused its discretion,” Sanchez pointed out that, while “[i]t is undisputed Jameson did not comply with the Standing Order’s deadlines,” the documents were provided to the opposing side and the court within 16 to 21 days before trial, which complied with applicable local rules.

The jurist continued:

“The practical effect of these sanctions was to preclude Jameson from presenting claims and defenses on key issues, including valuation evidence regarding community assets, reimbursement for the reasonable value of Danielle’s post-separation use of community property (Watts charges), and Epstein credits….’Although authorized to impose sanctions for violation of local rules…, courts ordinarily should avoid treating a curable violation of local procedural rules as the basis for crippling a litigant’s ability to present his or her case.’ ”

Less-Severe Sanctions

He added:

“We further note the court could have imposed less severe sanctions. Indeed, monetary sanctions were available under the Standing Order, and a brief continuance of trial would have addressed any timing concerns. Danielle disagrees, claiming a continuance would have delayed litigation, imposed burdens on the court and parties, and was unnecessary without a showing of good cause. Although these are valid concerns, they do not justify sanctions that prevented Jameson from litigating key issues in the proceedings.”

Remarking that “we do not minimize the importance of complying with pretrial orders,” he said:

“Trial courts can manage their calendars and enforce orderly procedures. But this authority does not eliminate the requirement that sanctions remain proportionate and consistent with a party’s right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

The case is In re Marriage of Burmeister, G064460.