Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-for-sanctions-50
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 18:20:17
Document Index: 198260420

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 128', '§ 1010', '§ 128', '§2032']

A motion for sanctions can be filed to request that a trial court “order a party, the party's attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(a).
“An order for sanctions pursuant to this section shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the action or tactic or comparable action or tactic by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the action or tactic described in subdivision (a).” Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(f)(2).
A trial court may also impose sanctions for violating certification requirements. The presentation of a pleading or similar paper to the court, “whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating,” constitutes a certification by the attorney or unrepresented party that the document is not being presented for an improper purpose; contains legal contentions warranted by law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law; alleges factual matter that is supported by evidence or likely to be so after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation; and contains denials of factual contentions that are warranted by the evidence. Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(b).
“Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise provided by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.” Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(a).
The court has broad discretion to impose sanctions if the moving party satisfies the elements of the sanctions statute. “However the sanctions statute must not be construed so as to conflict with the primary duty of an attorney to represent his or her client zealously. Forceful representation often requires that an attorney attempt to read a case or an agreement in an innovative though sensible way. Our law is constantly evolving, and effective representation sometimes compels attorneys to take the lead in that evolution.” Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 441.
Sanctions under Section 128.5 require “extremely high proof” and “truly egregious behaviors.” San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1318-1319. The moving party must demonstrate that the conduct was:
“objectively unreasonable,” i.e., that any reasonable attorney would agree that the challenged conduct is totally and completely without merit; and
a showing of “subjective bad faith.” Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167. Under this section, a motion for sanctions shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific alleged action or tactic, made in bad faith, that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(a)(1)(A).
In determining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence. Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(a)(1).
The moving party has the burden to tender evidence showing sanctionable conduct. San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1319-1320. For instance, a party seeking sanctions may rely on factually devoid discovery responses by the party opposing the sanctions motion to raise a reasonable inference the party opposing the sanctions motion lacks facts supporting its claims. If the moving party does so, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the party opposing the sanctions motion to refute the moving party’s prima facie case. The court has discretion to consider further briefing and evidence before ruling on the motion. If the court determines sanctions are appropriate, it must then determine the type and amount of sanctions and whether to impose sanctions on counsel, the client, or both. San Diegans for Open Govt. v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1319-1320.
To recover section 128.7 sanctions, the motion must “describe the specific conduct” that demonstrates the attorney or unrepresented party presented to the court a pleading that contains claims
presented for an improper purpose,
not warranted by law or a nonfrivolous argument for a change in the law, or
containing factual allegations without evidentiary support.
Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(c)(1).
Section 128.7 “imposes a lower threshold for sanctions” than 128.5 and only requires that the conduct be “objectively unreasonable.” That is, whether any reasonable attorney would agree that the claim is totally and completely without merit. Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 167.
It is not necessary for the moving party to show that the party presenting the deficient pleading acted with an improper motive or subjective bad faith, but the fact that a party does not actually believe in the merits of his or her claim is relevant to the issue whether sanctions are warranted in a particular case. Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 440, 449.
Notice of the motion for sanctions shall be served as provided in the Code Civil Procedure, § 1010.
However, it shall not be filed with the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, the challenged pleading is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(c)(1). The safe harbor notice provisions must be strictly complied with. This serves the statute’s remedial purpose and underscores the seriousness of a motion for sanctions. At the time of such service, the motion must set forth the hearing date. Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538.
Useful Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – General
MARTHA VITAL, ET AL. VS OAK HILLS IV CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
(1) MOTION TO DISMISS MP: Defendant Ernest Ybarra, dba Super Builders RP: Plaintiff Brandy Christina Good (2) MOTION TO DISMISS MP: Defendant Ernest Ybarra, dba Super Builders RP2: Plaintiff David A. Olivas Jr. Defendant Super Builders’ motions to dismiss are DENIED. Plaintiff Olivas’ request for monetary sanctions against Super Builders is DENIED. Plaintiff Good’s request for monetary san...
..liance Environmental Group LLC (“Alliance”—the environmental remediation company Oak Hills hired), and Earnest Ybarra dba Super Builders (“general contractors that Plaintiffs hired) for claims associated with insurance bad faith, property damage to the dwelling and emotional distress. The complaint is based on the following allegations: Plaintiff Vital is the owner of condominium unit #104 locate...
ZENAIDO DIAZ GONZALEZ ET AL VS FCA US LLC ET AL
MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS IS DENIED Background On April 2, 2018, Plaintiffs Zenaido Diaz Gonzalez and Mayra Diaz filed the instant action against Defendants FCA US LLC (hereinafter “FCA”), Glendale Dodge, LLC dba Glendale Dodge Chrysler Jeep, and Does 1 through 10. On February 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserts causes of action for: Violati...
..t. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiffs took the Motion to Enforce Settlement off calendar. Legal Standard Code of Civil procedure section 128.5 provides that “[a] trial court may order a party, the party's attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended t...
Piazza v. The Irvine Company Apartment Communities, Inc.
Motion for Sanctions Plaintiff David Piazza seeks an order imposing sanctions against Defendants Irvine Company Apartment Communities, Inc. (“ICAC”) and Irvine Company, LLC (“Irvine Company”), and their attorney of record, Everett Dorey LLP, in the amount of $17,385 pursuant to CCP Section 128.7. As an initial matter, the Court notes Plaintiff filed this motion conditionally under seal pursuant to...
..is certifying that, to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: (1) it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose; (2) the claims, defenses, or other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or re...
ALMA MONTES VS IN-N-OUT BURGER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ALMA MONTES, Plaintiff(s), vs. IN-N-OUT BURGER, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC671890 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. September 20, 2019 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Alma Montes filed this action ag...
..g inspections that occurred on the date of the incident. Defendant raises numerous purported procedural issues in its opposition; the Court is unclear on why Defendant apparently did not receive copies of all of the moving papers. The Court finds, however, that one key issue is dispositive: the discovery cut-off in this case occurred on 7/29/19, and Plaintiff did not file this motion until 8/13/19...
AURORA LE MERE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
INTRODUCTION On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Aurora Lemere (“plaintiff”) filed this instant action against defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), Jan Murata, and Mattie Adams arising out of allegations regarding plaintiff’s employment as a teacher with defendant LAUSD. On May 8, 2017, defendant LAUSD filed a demurrer to plaintiff’s Complaint. On May 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a F...
..ress. Defendant LAUSD now seeks an order awarding defendant LAUSD sanctions in the amount of $5,440.00 against plaintiff and her counsel of record, Douglas Spoors, pursuant to CCP section 128.7. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendant LAUSD’s requests for judicial notice are granted pursuant to Evid. Code section 452(d). ANALYSIS CCP section 128.7 states in relevant part: “A motion for sanction...
RYAN JENSON VS ELIZABETH D MILLER, ET AL.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT RYAN JENSON, Plaintiff(s), vs. ELIZABETH D. MILLER, ET AL., Defendant(s). Case No.: 18STCV00164 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL IME Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. September 16, 2019 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Ryan Jenson filed this action against Defendants, Elizabeth D. Miller and the County of...
..ions Except for defense physicals in personal injury cases (in which one examination is permitted as a matter of course) and exams arranged by stipulation, a court order is required for a physical or mental examination. Such order may be made only after notice and hearing, and for “good cause shown.” (CCP §2032.320(a).) The examination will be limited to whatever condition is “in controversy” in...
Recent Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – General
Civil - Limited (4,358)
Civil - Unlimited (25,620)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (4,508)
Discovery Hearing (3,378)
Ex Parte (3,364)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (14,460)
Probate (23,417)
Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) (2,356)
Alan G. Perkins (10,928)
Angel Bermudez (833)
Brian C. Walsh (216)
Burch (180)
Charles Treat (2,076)
Colleen Sterne (7,613)
Craig G. Riemer (569)
Daniel A. Ottolia (45)
David De Alba (6,068)
David Hoffer (316)
David W. Abbott (21,892)
Deborah C Servino (1,318)
Douglas Prouty (235)
Dylan Sullivan (354)
E. Bradley Nelson (277)
Earl H. Maas Iii (1,796)
Eddie C Sturgeon (2,406)
Edward B. Moreton (460)
Edward Weil (690)
Frederick Horn (1,040)
Genalin Riley (7,401)
Glen Reiser (14,199)
Glenda Sanders (973)
Glenn R. Salter (962)
Gregory Lewis (2,146)
Irma P. Asberry (227)
Jackson Lucky (288)
James Di Cesare (1,670)
James F. Rigali (2,742)
James L. Crandall (1,685)
Jed Beebe (1,753)
Jill Fannin (1,292)
Joel R. Wohlfeil (3,665)
John C. Gastelum (2,106)
John S. Meyer (2,617)
Katherine Bacal (2,414)
Kent Kellegrew (4,261)
Laurie M. Earl (1,405)
Layne H. Melzer (807)
Linda D. Hurst (324)
Mark Borrell (1,198)
Martha K. Gooding (1,666)
Peter Wilson (1,294)
Randall J. Sherman (1,493)
Randall S. Stamen (583)
Raoul M. Thorbourne (372)
Raquel A. Marquez (576)
Richard E. L. Strauss (2,329)
Richard J. Burdge (496)
Richard Lee (756)
Robert P Dahlquist (782)
Roger Lund (4,015)
Rosemary Mcguire (371)
Russell L. Hom (224)
Steve K. Austin (2,284)
Sunshine S. Sykes (844)
Susanne Fenstermacher (619)
Tamara L Mosbarger (590)
Thadd A. Blizzard (1,173)
Theodore R. Howard (1,120)
Thomas A. Delaney (170)
Thomas Anderle (5,903)
Timothy M. Casserly (1,921)
Timothy Staffel (2,703)
Wendy G. Getty (250)
Walter Schwarm (1,855)
William D Claster (1,702)
Butte County, CA (1,063)
Contra Costa County, CA (19,278)
El Dorado County, CA (1,311)
Fresno County, CA (4,242)
Los Angeles County, CA (80,345)
Marin County, CA (578)
Orange County, CA (32,293)
Plumas County, CA (766)
Riverside County, CA (8,307)
Sacramento County, CA (103,719)
San Diego County, CA (37,257)
San Joaquin County, CA (1,806)
San Luis Obispo County, CA (1,748)
Santa Barbara County, CA (30,905)
Santa Clara County, CA (1,539)
Solano County, CA (3,209)
Stanislaus County, CA (1,609)
Ventura County, CA (53,407)
In order for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff has a proper claim seeking reformation of a written contract, Plaintiff must provide a copy of the contract and further allegations as to how the contract does not reflect the parties’ intent. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the eighth cause of action is SUSTAINED, with twenty (20) days leave to amend. Motion to Strike Given the Court’s ruling on demurrer, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED, as MOOT.