TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Julia Hakim’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is DENIED.

Defendant Julia Hakim to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant Julia Hakim (“Julia”) moves the Court for an order of terminating and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Papillones, LLC (“Papillones”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 on the ground that Papillones’ complaint is legally and factually frivolous, Papillones and its principal Michael Hakim (“Michael”) weaponized the court system for the purpose of harassing Julia, Pand apillones’ new counsel improperly maintained this frivolous complaint.

Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 allows for sanctions where a party violates subdivision (b) of the section, which requires a party to indicate that filed documents, including a pleading, are supported by evidence and not filed for an improper purpose. An attorney violates Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 “[b]y presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper” which contains claims not “warranted by existing law or by nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law,” or claims containing “allegations and other factual contentions [without] evidentiary support” and then failing to withdraw same within the safe harbor period. A trial court is to apply “an objective standard” in making its inquiry concerning the attorney’s or party’s allegedly sanctionable behavior in connection with a motion for sanctions brought under section 128.7. (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 82.) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Court determines that the certification was improper under the circumstances, it may impose an appropriate sanction.

Sanctions may include “directives of a nonmonetary nature” and “payment to the movant of . . . the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (d).) Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 further provides that “[a] sanction imposed for violation of subdivision (b) shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (d).) The statute “is designed to be remedial, not punitive.” (Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, 591.) “While [Code of Civil Procedure] section 128.7 does allow for reimbursement of expenses, including attorney fees, its primary purpose is to deter filing abuses, not to compensate those affected by them.” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 519.) For purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, “[a] claim is objectively unreasonable if ‘any reasonable attorney would agree that [it] is totally and completely without merit.’” (Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 440; see also Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 168 [even where a party’s filing “lacks persuasive force,” the trial court may not award sanctions under 128.7 if the filing “was not frivolous”].)

In short, Julia argues that when the Court granted Defendant/Cross-Complainant Said Hakim (“Said”)’s motion for summary judgment on October 18, 2024, finding therein that Papillones’ sole cause of action for quiet title is time barred, this constituted an acknowledgement that Papillones’ pleading and allegations therein were lies, and there was no justification for Michael and Papillones to continue pursuing this meritless action in the face of the Court’s ruling that it is time barred. Notably, this motion was filed on January 14, 2025, and shortly thereafter, Papillones’ counsel filed an opposition to Julia’s motion for summary judgment on behalf of Papillones, essentially restating the same arguments as to Said’s motion for summary judgment; on February 3, 2025, Papillones’ counsel was admonished by the discovery referee, and it was recommended that the Court dismiss Papillones’ complaint due to Michael’s discovery violations; the Court held a hearing on February 7, 2025 regarding the misconduct and found that Michael had engaged in conduct designed to obfuscate and delay orders and deadlines; and on February 10, 2025, the Court adopted the referee’s recommendation and imposed terminating sanctions against Papillones and Michael. Thus, insofar as Julia seeks terminating sanctions against Papillones, that portion of the motion is moot. As to monetary sanctions, Julia states that she intends to identify the amount of fees and costs in a later filing. The Court will not make a finding as the propriety of fees and costs without a specific amount, particularly where Julia appears to seek sanctions against both Papillones and its attorney, Jeff Mann. In other words, the Court will not issue what is essentially an advisory opinion as to whether sanctions are proper; Julia must file a properly noticed amount identifying the amount of sanctions sought as to Papillones and its attorney. For those reasons, Defendant Julia Hakim’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is DENIED.