Source: https://www.calattorneysfees.com/2018/12/sanctions-41-dca-panel-agrees-that-ccp-1285-sanctions-are-unwarranted-unless-moving-parties-comply-w.html
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 12:20:51
Document Index: 435635405

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 998', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128']

Sanctions: 4/1 DCA Panel Agrees That CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Are Unwarranted Unless Moving Parties Comply With CCP § 128.7 “Safe Harbor” Requirements - CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES
« Costs, Probate, Section 998: Insurance Company Controlling Litigation Is De Facto Party Under Probate Code, Liable For Litigation Costs Under Rejected CCP § 998 Offer | Main | Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Plaintiff Winning Only $2,636.50 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Lemon Law Case Was Entitled To Reversal And Remand »
Sanctions: 4/1 DCA Panel Agrees That CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Are Unwarranted Unless Moving Parties Comply With CCP § 128.7 “Safe Harbor” Requirements
Panel Disagrees With Prior 4/1 Panel In San Diegans for Open Government And Follows Contrary Result Reached By 2/7 DCA In Nutrition Distribution.
We find the result in CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v. Gray, Case No. D072909 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 6, 2018) (published) both refreshing and correct in its reasoning. It goes to show you that appellate courts, even within different panels in a particular division, are willing to disagree among themselves.
In this one, a 4/1 DCA panel decided that CCP § 128.5 moving parties must satisfy the 21-day “safe harbor” requirement of CCP § 128.7 in order to be procedurally entitled to sanctions—providing the opposing party an opportunity to withdraw the challenged conduct. This panel decided that a different 4/1 DCA panel’s decision to the contrary in San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306 [reviewed in our June 9, 2016 post] was not the right result, siding instead with the reasoning by the 2/7 DCA in Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Southern SARMS, Inc., 20 Cal.App.5th 117, 130 [reviewed in our Feb. 3, 2018 post].
BLOG OBSERVATION—Co-contributor Mike made this argument before a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who did not accept it because only San Diegans was published at the time. Likely, this decision may make unnecessary California Supreme Court review given that there is now an intermediate appellate court “plurality” requiring compliance with the “safe harbor” requirements.
Posted at 03:39 PM in Cases: Sanctions | Permalink