Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV21735, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 2, 2023

Case Name: Brandon Farm, LLC v. Screen Media Ventures, LLC

Case No.: 22STCP03468

Matter: Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Petitioner Brandon Farm, LLC

Responding Party: Respondent Screen Media Ventures, LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Sanctions is denied.

Petitioner to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On January 10, 2023, the Court granted Petitioner Brandon Farm, LLC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

Petitioner now seeks sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7, contending that the response to Petition filed by Respondent Screen Media Ventures, LLC was frivolous.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7, a court may impose sanctions for filing a pleading if the court concludes the pleading was filed for an improper purpose or was indisputably without factual or legal merit.  (Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 168.)  A claim is factually frivolous if it is “not well grounded in fact” and it is legally frivolous if it is “not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”  (Id. at p. 167.)  In either case, to obtain sanctions, the moving party must show the party's conduct in asserting the claim was objectively unreasonable.  (Ibid.)  A claim is objectively unreasonable if “any reasonable attorney would agree that [it] is totally and completely without merit.” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650; Guillemin, supra, at p. 168.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7 provides for a 21-day period during which the opposing party may avoid sanctions by withdrawing the offending pleading or other document. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(c)(1); see Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, 590–591.) By providing this safe harbor period, the Legislature designed the statute to be “remedial, not punitive.”  (Li, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 591, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 334.)  When a party does not take advantage of the safe harbor period, the “statute enables courts to deter or punish frivolous filings which disrupt matters, waste time, and burden courts' and parties' resources.”  (In re Mark B. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 61, 76.)

Here, Petitioner acknowledges that the instant Motion was filed one day before the 21-day safe harbor period ended.  Petitioner contends that there was substantial compliance. 

“The time for filing a sanctions motion is dictated by the safe harbor period because, per the clear import of the statute, a motion for sanctions must be filed outside the safe harbor period. It cannot be filed on day one of the safe harbor period, day 21 of the safe harbor period, or any day in between.”  (Broad. Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 596, 606.)  “Filing even one day early justifies denial of the motion.”  (Younger on California Motions § 3:8 (2d ed.).)

Because there was not full compliance with the necessary safe harbor period, the Motion for Sanctions is denied.

Petitioner to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.