Department 58

Hearing Date: July 26, 2022

Case Name: Counts Law Firm PC v. Christopher Garrett

Case No.: 21PDSC00348

Matter: Motion to Strike; Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Counts Law

Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-plaintiff Christopher Garrett / unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Strike Cross-complaint is taken off-calendar as moot; the Motion for Sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Counts Law Firm (Counts) moves to strike Defendant/Cross-plaintiff’s Cross-complaint alleged against it for breach of contract and declaratory relief.

Counts’ Motion to Strike Cross-complaint is moot because Defendant Garrett dismissed Cross-Defendant “Emahn Counts dba Counts Law Firm, PC” on June 28, 2022, in Case No. 21STCV23691.

Counts’ Motion for Sanctions is denied because it is procedurally improper, having been filed in Case No. 21PDSC00348 when the Cross-complaint upon which Counts seeks relief was filed in Case No. 21STCV23691.

The Motion for Sanctions is also denied for failure to comply with the 21-day safe harbor provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (c)(1). This compliance is strictly construed, and substantial compliance is not enough. (Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538.) The Motion for Sanctions is supported by an insufficient meet and confer letter, which was not fully provided and the contents of which the Court cannot meaningfully review. (Counts Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 3.) There is no evidence that Counts provided the same motion to Cross-plaintiff Garrett as it filed with the Court. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410, 414.) Accordingly, the request for sanctions is denied.