Court Opinion

ID: 9377913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 00:02:16.880343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:17.868158
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/8/23 Marriage of Dolkhani & Izadpanahi CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION SEVEN

In re Marriage of NAHID H.                                 B317763
DOLKHANI and KOUROSH
IZADPANAHI.                                               (Los Angeles County
                                                          Super. Ct. No.
                                                          18CHFL02540)

NAHID H. DOLKHANI,

         Respondent,

         v.

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI,

         Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Sarah Heidel, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
         Kourosh Izadpanahi, in pro. per., for Appellant.
      Ferguson Case Orr Patterson and Wendy C. Lascher for
Respondent.
                 ________________________________
       The family court ordered Kourosh Izadpanahi to pay
$11,605 in sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271
(section 271) to counsel for his former wife, Nahid Dolkhani,
based on Izadpanahi’s failure to cooperate in the preparation of a
proposed judgment resolving property issues in Dolkhani and
Izadpanahi’s dissolution action. Although the court did not abuse
its discretion in awarding section 271 sanctions, the court’s
finding supports an award of only $6,605 for fees tethered to the
misconduct it identified. We reduce the sanctions award to that
amount and affirm the order as modified.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      1. The July 7, 2021 Order To Prepare a Proposed Judgment
         and Ultimate Entry of the Judgment
       As described in our opinion in Izadpanahi’s prior appeal
(Dolkhani v. Izadpanahi (Jan. 20, 2023, B314257) [nonpub.
opn.]), in 2017 Dolkhani and Izadpanahi resolved outstanding
issues in their long-pending family law case through a stipulated
judgment. Before the stipulated judgment was entered, however,
the couple tried to reconcile; and the action was dismissed
without prejudice. In 2018 Dolkhani filed a new dissolution
petition and a request for order to enforce the terms of the
parties’ stipulated judgment. Izadpanahi opposed the request.
       On July 7, 2021 the family court held a short cause trial on
the issue whether judgment could be entered based on the
parties’ 2017 stipulated judgment. Izadpanahi and Dolkhani
were each represented by counsel. The court ruled the stipulated
judgment was still binding and directed Dolkhani to submit a

                                 2
proposed judgment to Izadpanahi for review and thereafter to
submit it to the court for entry.
       The judgment was ultimately entered on September 30,
2021. The interaction between Izadpanahi, who represented
himself for most of the period after the July 7, 2021 trial, and
Dolkhani’s counsel leading to entry of the judgment was the basis
for the court’s sanctions award.
       Two days after the July 7, 2021 hearing, Steven L. Weiss,
Dolkhani’s attorney, sent Izadpanahi and the attorney who had
represented him at the hearing a judgment package. According
to Weiss’s declaration filed in support of the motion for sanctions,
he received no response to the package or any of his follow-up
emails. Accordingly, in mid-August 2021 Weiss submitted
two declarations—one pursuant to California Rules of Court,
rule 5.125 (preparation, service, and submission of order after
hearing); and the second pursuant to rule 3.1590 (announcement
of tentative decision, statement of decision, and judgment)—
summarizing the status of the matter and asking the court to
enter judgment. The declarations contained an unsigned copy of
the judgment as an exhibit. The court took no action in response
to those filings.
       For his part, Izadpanahi acknowledged that Weiss sent him
the judgment package following the July 7, 2021 hearing. After
10 days Weiss emailed Izadpanahi and advised him, because
Izadpanahi had not responded within the required time, he had
lost the opportunity to object to the form of the proposed
judgment and Weiss would proceed. Izadpanahi confirmed Weiss
was correct and, he asserted, assumed Weiss would then submit
the judgment to the court. According to Izadpanahi, the
summary declarations filed thereafter by Weiss did not include

                                 3
the proposed judgment, but Izadpanahi believed from his
continuing email exchanges with Weiss that Weiss had submitted
it. That, according to Izadpanahi, turned out not to be the case.
       On September 3, 2021 Izadpanahi filed a request for a
temporary emergency order to have the judgment entered.1 The
court denied the request for order, explaining, “If the parties wish
to have the court sign a judgment, they are directed to submit it,
signed, with all requested documents and paperwork, to the court
for processing. If there is no signature from [one] party, please
submit a proof of service indicating whether it has been served
[and] if there are objections.” Weiss then sent a second judgment
package to Izadpanahi for him to sign and return for Dolkhani to
sign and have Weiss file with the court. Instead, Izadpanahi
signed and submitted it to the court on his own on September 7,
2021. The court then entered the judgment.
      2. The Section 271 Sanctions Motions
         a. The initial request
      On August 19, 2021 Izadpanahi filed a request for order
relating to child custody and visitation2 and on August 23, 2021 a
related request for a child custody evaluation. In Weiss’s
response on behalf of Dolkhani, he requested section 271

1      Following the July 7, 2021 trial, Izadpanahi immediately
filed a notice of appeal. On September 1, 2021 he was notified by
this court that the case information statement filed on August 30,
2021 for the appeal was deficient because it did not attach a copy
of a signed judgment. Izadpanahi included that notice as an
exhibit to his declaration in support of the request for an order
entering the judgment.
2    Dolkhani and Izadpanahi have a daughter. Izadpanahi
was seeking 50/50 custody.

                                  4
sanctions of $75,000 based on Izadpanahi’s purported misconduct
throughout the entire course of the case.
       At a hearing on October 7, 2021 the family court denied
both of Izadpanahi’s requests regarding custody and visitation.
Turning to the question of section 271 sanctions, the court noted
that Dolkhani’s request covered the entire proceeding and
inquired of Weiss, “What were the costs that were incurred just
trying to get this judgment entered because that’s the part that I
think—that’s the portion of this that I think was—really abused
the litigation process?” The court commented whether the 2017
stipulated judgment remained enforceable was a legitimate legal
dispute for which sanctions should not be awarded, as were the
issues raised by Izadpanahi concerning custody and visitation.
Weiss responded that he could not answer that question without
reviewing his firm’s invoices. The court denied the motion for
sanctions without prejudice, observing it had “never had a more
confusing way of having a judgment submitted when both parties
wanted it signed.” The court continued, “I do believe,
Mr. Izadpanahi, that was largely because you were
uncooperative” and authorized Weiss to “put that in a declaration
with a request for 271 sanctions, if he wants to.”3
         b. The October 20, 2021 motion
      Notwithstanding the court’s direction to limit a renewed
section 271 motion to fees and costs related to the process by
which judgment had been entered, on October 20, 2021 Weiss

3      The court directed Weiss to prepare findings and order
after hearing with respect to custody and visitation. Weiss asked
if he could include in the findings the court’s comments about
Izadpanahi being uncooperative. The court responded, “That’s
not a formal finding.”

                                5
filed a new motion on behalf of Dolkhani for section 271 sanctions
that again requested an award of $75,000, but added, “or other
such amount’s [sic] this court deems just and proper.” Weiss’s
declaration in support of the award described Izadpanahi’s lack of
cooperation during discovery, trial preparation, settlement
discussions and the July 7, 2021 trial itself. After July 7, 2021,
Weiss declared, he spent at least $5,030 in attorney time in July
and August drafting the proposed judgment, trying to correspond
with Izadpanahi and his counsel about the judgment and
preparing the two declarations he filed,4 as well as $675 in fees
responding to Izadpanahi’s September ex parte application for
entry of the judgment. In addition, responding to Izadpanahi’s
two requests for orders relating to custody and visitation
following the July 7, 2021 hearing, including appearing at the
October 7, 2021 hearing, cost his client another $5,000.
       In his response filed on December 2, 2021 Izadpanahi, once
again represented by counsel, argued he had acted in good faith
in attempting to have the judgment entered, based on his
attempts to understand the process and procedures as (at the
time) a self-represented litigant. His declaration set out the
pertinent chronology from his perspective and explained his
actions. He also attached an income and expense declaration
(Judicial Council form FL-150), dated December 1, 2021, showing
for the prior month an income of $11,741 but asserting an
average monthly income of only $2,730, with average monthly
expenses of $4,075, and assets totaling $71,000 ($21,000 in a
checking account; $50,000 in real estate equity).

4     The $5,030 aggregate sum included fees for addressing
issues relating to Izadpanahi’s filing of the notice of appeal before
entry of the judgment.

                                  6
       In a reply declaration Weiss challenged Izadpanahi’s
financial information, including, for example, stating that in the
judgment entered on September 30, 2021, signed by Izadpanahi
on September 6, 2021, Izadpanahi averred his average monthly
income was $7,000.
       At the hearing on the motion on December 15, 2021, the
court expressed concern that Dolkhani had again requested
sanctions of $75,000 and asked Weiss, “What are the fees
associated with the back and forth regarding the judgment,
specifically?” Weiss initially answered $29,250. Then, looking at
his declaration and invoices attached as exhibits, he responded
the time related to that matter, not including the current
hearing, was $10,705.
       After hearing further argument concerning Izadpanahi’s
conduct with respect to entry of the judgment and briefly
concerning his ability to pay, the court awarded $10,705 in
sanctions plus $900 (two hours at $450 per hour) for Weiss’s time
at the hearing. In explaining its ruling, the court noted Weiss’s
$75,000 request covered “more than just the judgment issue” and
stated it was “limiting the scope of the court’s order today” to that
matter. In that regard, the court found Izadpanahi’s declaration
explaining why he proceeded with the judgment as he did to be
neither credible nor compelling. The court continued, “The
reality is he frustrated the resolution of a very straightforward
issue by refusing to cooperate. And that’s what 271 sanctions are
for.” The court then pointed out that Izadpanahi’s income and
expense declaration showed assets of $71,000, a prior month’s
income of $11,741, but “for some reason, there’s an average
monthly that’s much, much less than that,” and concluded, “it’s
clear to me there’s sufficient money for some sort of sanction.”

                                  7
      Izadpanahi filed a timely notice of appeal.
                          DISCUSSION
       1. Governing Law and Standard of Review
       Section 271, subdivision (a), provides, “Notwithstanding
any other provision of this code, the court may base an award of
attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of
each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law
to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce
the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the
parties and attorneys. An award of attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction.” (See
Boblitt v. Boblitt (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 [“[t]he duty
imposed by . . . section 271 requires a party to a dissolution action
to be cooperative and work toward settlement of the litigation on
pain of being required to share the party’s adversary’s litigation
costs”].) An award of fees as a sanction under this section does
not require any showing of need or actual injury. (§ 271,
subd. (a); see In re Marriage of Feldman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th
1470, 1478-1479.) However, the court is prohibited from making
an award that “imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the
party against whom the sanction is imposed.” (§ 271, subd. (a);
see In re Marriage of Pearson (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 218, 233.)
       We review the award of sanctions under section 271 for an
abuse of discretion. (Menezes v. McDaniel (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th
340, 347; In re E.M. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 828, 850.) Findings
of fact that formed the basis for the award are reviewed for
substantial evidence. (Menezes, at p. 347; In re Marriage of
Corona (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1226; In re Marriage of
Feldman, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1479.) The imposition of
section 271 sanctions will be upheld on appeal unless,

                                 8
“‘considering all of the evidence viewed most favorably in its
support and indulging all reasonable inferences in its favor, no
judge could reasonably make the order.’” (In re E.M., at p. 850;
accord, Menezes, at p. 347.)
      2. A Section 271 Sanction Award Was Within the Family
         Court’s Broad Discretion
       Izadpanahi, Dolkhani’s counsel and the family court all
agreed the process of moving from the court’s July 7, 2021 ruling
that the 2017 stipulated judgment was enforceable to entry of the
judgment incorporating that document on September 30, 2021
became unnecessarily complicated and time-consuming.
Izadpanahi contended he was doing his best as a self-represented
litigant. Weiss asserted Izadpanahi had acted in bad faith and
was being deliberately uncooperative, arguing Izadpanahi
apparently had no objection to the form of the judgment prepared
by Weiss since he ultimately submitted it to the court on his own,
yet refused to sign the judgment package and return it to Weiss
as requested or even to notify Weiss that he had no objections.
The court credited Weiss’s narrative, disbelieving Izadpanahi’s.
As such, it was well within the court’s discretion to award
sanctions pursuant to section 271 for Izadpanahi’s misconduct.
       Similarly, faced with conflicting evidence regarding
Izadpanahi’s monthly income and ability to pay a sanctions
award without imposing an unreasonable financial burden, the
court’s finding that Izadpanahi could afford the sanctions
awarded was not an abuse of discretion.

                                9
     3. The Family Court Abused Its Discretion in Awarding
        Section 271 Sanctions of $5,000 for Opposing
        Izadpanahi’s Requests for Custody and Visitation Orders
       The family court repeatedly stated—at both the October 7
and the December 15, 2021 hearings—it would consider
imposition of section 271 sanctions only for Izadpanahi’s lack of
cooperation in connection with entry of the judgment. Asked
point blank on December 15 what the fees were “associated with
the back and forth regarding the judgment, specifically,” Weiss,
after first responding with a highly inflated figure of nearly
$30,000, stated $10,705, which was the amount the court then
awarded (plus $900 for two hours at the hearing that day).
       But Weiss’s declaration in support of the motion for
sanctions makes clear his $10,705 answer included $5,000 for
opposing Izadpanahi’s two post-July 7, 2021 attempts to modify
the custody and visitation orders, matters not within the
intended scope of the court’s sanction award. As discussed, Weiss
spent $5,030 in attorney time on judgment-related issues in July
and August 2021 and an additional $675 in fees responding to
Izadpanahi’s ex parte application for entry of the judgment. An
implied finding that Dolkhani incurred more than that amount in
fees related to the entry of judgment ($5,705, plus $900) is not
supported by substantial evidence. And imposition of a
section 271 sanction for the posttrial requests for custody and
visitation orders without a finding that Izadpanahi was unduly
uncooperative would constitute an abuse of the family court's
discretion. Accordingly, the $11,605 in sanctions awarded must
be reduced to $6,605.

                               10
                        DISPOSITION
      The amount of sanctions awarded is reduced to $6,605.
The order for sanctions is affirmed as modified. The parties are
to bear their own costs on appeal.

                                     PERLUSS, P. J.

      We concur.

            SEGAL, J.

            FEUER, J.

                                11