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:
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
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.
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Requests for Admissions/Sanctions; Compel Requests for Inspection of Documents/Set One/Sanctions; Compel Responses to Interrogatories/Set One/Sanctions Tentative
Feb 24, 2020
Sheldon Widuch v. Ancheta Holdings, LLC, et al. MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST LAURA ANCHETA, ET AL, PURSUANT TO CCP SECTIONS 2023.010 & 2030.090 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sheldon Widuch RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Ancheta Holdings, LLC, Laura Ancheta, trustee of the...
...rent. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Sheldon Widuch’s motion to deem RFAs admitted is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also DENIED. DISCUSSION: Motion To Deem RFAs Admitted When a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to respond, the party propounding the requests may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in th...
Feb 21, 2020
Louis Metoyer v. Marjorie Anne Guzman, et al. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF LOUIS METOYER MOVING PARTY: Defendant Marjorie Anne Guzman RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Louis Metoyer STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is a personal i...
...RULING: Defendant Marjorie Anne Guzman’s motion to compel the deposition of Louis Metoyer is GRANTED. The deposition is to take place within 14 days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,055.00 against both Plaintiff Louis Metoyer and his counsel, the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 3...
Feb 21, 2020
...Defendant Allan Law Group, P.C. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses is DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Although the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons stated below, the Court believes that Defense counsel is playing games by its blanket objections to relevant discovery and by not providing answers to legitimate interrogatories. The C...
...the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff on such a further motion, the Court will consider awarding plaintiff sanctions. Hopefully, the parties will be able to meet-and-confer to avoid the need for further motions on this issue. BACKGROUND: On February 26, 2019 Plaintiff Claire Levine, in propria persona, commenced this action. On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defen...
Feb 21, 2020
...Tuesday, January 21, 2020 NOTICE: See below[1] RE: Stith v. Cervantes, et al. (KC069427) ______________________________________________________________________________ Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes’ MOTION FOR ORDER THAT REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 1/9/20, 3:31 p.m.; due 1/7/20) Tentative Ruling Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes’ unopposed Motion ...
...2033.280(b), the court orders that the truth of the matters and the genuineness of all documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Cervantes to Plaintiff be deemed admitted. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $61.65 and payable within 30 days. Background Plaintiff Michael Stith (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff and Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes (“Cervantes”) were...
Feb 21, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
...Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $960.00 against Defendant Jay Min Chen and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, to be paid within 30 days of this order. (2) The motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED as to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1-4, 11-16, 18, 20-42, and 44, and DENIED as to Request for Production of D...
...order. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,410 against Defendant Jay Min Chen, to be paid within 30 days of this order. (3) At the request of the moving party, the motion for compliance with the subpoena duces tecum is CONTINUED to March ___________. Plaintiff is ordered to give proper notice regarding each motion. Background On February 20, 2019, Plaintiff Carrien Qia...
Feb 21, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
...01/19/1988 (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to compel responses from Defendants David Chang, California Owl, Inc., West Covina Wings, LLC (“Defendants”) for Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one. In the same motion, he also requests an order deeming the Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, to be deemed admitted. On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff served on Defendants the discovery requests, such that responses ...
...responses to the FROG is granted pursuant to CCP §2030.290. Defendants are ordered to provide verified responses to the FROG, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted is granted, pursuant to CCP §2033.280. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants only. The requests are granted in a reasonable amount of $660 (= a reason...
Feb 21, 2020
deanna aivazian, Plaintiff, v. sarkis tersakian, et al., Defendants. Case No.: EC066481 Hearing Date: February 21, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel; motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in request for admissions admitted BACKGROUND A. Allegations This case arises from Plaintiff Deanna Aivazian's (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Sarkis T...
...statute – CCP §789.3; and (8) NIED. B. Discovery Motions on Calendar and Relevant Background On January 21, 2020, Defendants Brook Fain and Napa filed two discovery motions against Plaintiff: (1) a motion to compel initial responses to form interrogatories, set one (“FROG”), special interrogatories, set one (“SROG”), and requests for production of documents, set one (“RPD”); and (2) motion to deem the ...
Feb 21, 2020
Nature of Proceedings: (4) Motions to Compel TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the motions of defendant Louis Armstrong and Associates, LLC, to compel further responses to written discovery from plaintiff Robert S. Shumake Living Trust 1994 are continued to March 27, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. Ba...
...Shumake Trust (Shumake Trust). (E.g., Sandler decl. re special interrogatories, ¶ 2.) On November 12, 2019, counsel for Shumake Trust, attorney Rafael Bernardino, Hobson, Bernardino & Davis LLP, filed his motion to be relieved as counsel. On November 25, 2019, following the granting of extensions, Shumake Trust served responses to the discovery in the form of objections. (E.g., Sandler decl. re special inter...
Feb 21, 2020
The OSC for sanctions/dismissal for failure to file judgment is continued from 2/21/20, to 4/21/20, at 8:15 am in Dept. 22B. A Motion to Change Venue is scheduled for hearing on 3/2/20.
Feb 21, 2020
Genalin Riley
The Mandatory Appearance CMC/OSC re sanctions/dismissal failure to file proof of service/default is continued from 2/21/20, to 4/21/20, at 8:15 am in Dept. 22B. A Motion for Leave to Amend is scheduled for hearing on 3/27/20. Notice to be provide...
Feb 21, 2020
Genalin Riley
...Special Interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff Gillen Washington is ordered to serve verified responses to the special interrogatories, without objections, within 15 days. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff Gillen Washington is granted in the amount of $844.00, payable within 30 days. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.
Feb 21, 2020
...Bitton Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED as to the first and third causes of action. Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the second cause of action. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. BACKGROUND: This case concerns the breach of an agreement to form a new business entity for the marketing and sale of non-psychotropic cannabidiol-based products (“CBD Products”). On Oct...
...Cal.App.4th 72, 78.) B. Discussion 1. Meet and Confer and Sanctions Plaintiff argues that “this Court should not hear Moving Defendants’ demurrer, and order Moving Defendants’ to show cause as to why sanctions in the amount of $2,362.50 should not be imposed pursuant to Rule 2.30(b) of the California Rules of Court (‘CRC’), as a result of Moving Defendants’ and their counsel’s failure and refusal to properl...
Feb 21, 2020
...RFAs, set two on Plaintiffs on 9/23/19. On 12/16/19, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the outstanding discovery, deeming the RFAs admitted, and also imposing sanctions; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pu...
... sanctions. See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 490-91. Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time for three reasons. First, the Court previously imposed monetary sanctions. Second, a brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a termin...
Feb 20, 2020
... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...
...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...
Feb 20, 2020
... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...
...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...
Feb 20, 2020
... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...
...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...
Feb 20, 2020
... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...
...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...
Feb 20, 2020
Motion for Sanctions Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff Douglas Hart (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Alta Vis...
...Defendant/Cross-Defendant Alta Vista Gardens, Inc.’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production (Both Set One). On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Trial is set for December 7, 2020. PARTY’S REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to order either: (1) an issue sanction establishing Def...
Feb 20, 2020
...2025.450) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC To Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is DENIED. THE HEARING ON THE REMAINING REQUESTS IN THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR T...
...ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE MOTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Arsha Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, open book account, fraud, and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien against Defendant Cedarwo...
Feb 20, 2020
Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply p...
...entrustment. On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to add a cause of action for fraud/intentional misrepresentation. On January 3, 2020, Defendants Sergio Garcia and Manuela T. Garcia filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Pro...
Feb 20, 2020
...tentative ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 19 February 2020. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (LIMITED CIVIL CASES), SET ONE; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE I. Statement of ...
...Procedure, §§ 2030.260(a); 2031.260(a).) Moving party plaintiff does not seem to be pursuing the request for admissions at this time. The court must impose monetary sanctions against the losing party on a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production unless it finds that the offending party acted with substantial justification This Department intends to comply with the time requir...
Feb 20, 2020
Socrates P. Manoukian
...v. Does 1 through 100 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF THIRD-PARTY WITNESS AXIALL CORPORATION AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SPECTRA-TONE PAINT AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $2510.00 AGAINST AXIALL CORPORATION AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD POLSINELLI LLP AND SUSAN GILEFSKY MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs James Lewallen and Carole Lewallen RESPONDING PARTY(S): Non-Party Axiall C...
...Carole Lewallen’s motion to compel the deposition of third-party witness Axiall Corporation and its production of records is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Axiall’s cross-request for sanctions is also DENIED. DISCUSSION: Motion To Compel Deposition and Production of Records Meet and Confer The Declaration of Attorney Senami Craft reflects that she did attempt to meet and confer with Axi...
Feb 20, 2020
...ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 19 February 2020. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO BE ADMITTED; COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND ORDERING GARY JOHNSON AND CONNIE BLUCK TO APPEAR FOR ...
...January 2020, counsel for plaintiffs emailed his attorney to remind him of the deposition date. Mr. Dahliwal stated that Mr. Johnson was probably too busy to appear. No opposition has been filed to this motion. II. Analysis. By failing to respond to the request for admissions, defendants have waived any objections thereto. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776 (citing Code of Civil P...
Feb 20, 2020
Socrates P. Manoukian
a) Defendants' Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Discovery Requests and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendants' Motion for Imposition of Issue Sanctions, Evidence Sanctions, or Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff Arnulfo Garibay and for Monetary Sanctions – HEARING REQUIRED....
Feb 20, 2020
Sonny S. Sandhu
