Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00032, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00032    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 5-4-23

Case #22CHCV00032

Trial Date: 5-15-23

SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Alexandria Wise, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Carl Fout

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Sanctions

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff Carl Fout, Trustee of the Carl Fout 2018 Trust dated May 8, 2018 filed a complaint for Partition of Real Property for 30227 Hasley Canyon Road, Castaic. On March 23, 2022, the court overruled the demurrer of Defendants Alexandria Wise, Mitchel Wise, and Preston Wise to the complaint. Defendants answered the complaint on April 11, 2022, and filed a cross-complaint against Carl Fout for Partition, Accounting, and Constructive Trust for the same property.

RULING: Denied.

Defendants, Alexandria Wise, et al. move for the imposition of monetary sanctions equivalent to “reasonable attorney fees and costs” on grounds that Plaintiff filed the complaint in “bad faith” for the purpose of “harassment.” Plaintiff Carl Fout filed two oppositions—the first on 4-6-23 at 2:38 p.m., the other on 4-7-23 at 12:12 p.m. Both contain an opposition, with the earlier included an exhibit of a grant deed, and the other, a proof of service of the opposition. The substance of the opposition contends any motion against a represented party is procedurally improper, and nothing in the disagreement of the parties negotiation supports the imposition of sanctions. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The motion apparently comes after a breakdown of settlement negotiations, whereby Plaintiff refused to Defendants’ demand of a sale of the property. The correspondence between the parties indicates Plaintiff counter demands a buy out of Defendants’ interest. [Declaration of Steffanie Stelnick, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.]

Defendants move for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The section requires that an attorney sign all pleadings, petitions, notices of motions, and other similar papers.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (a).) Thus, by presenting a pleading or other similar paper to the court, an attorney is certifying that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, “formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” all of the following conditions are met:

 (1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b).) 

The section “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 514.) A violation of any of these certifications may give rise to sanctions. (Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 967, 976.) An objective standard of review applies to sections 128.5 and 128.7. (San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1318; Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 82.) Whether a claim is meritless or for the sole purpose of harassment must be evaluated by examining whether the factual allegations of the claim had evidentiary support. (580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 22.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 imposes a lower threshold for sanctions than is required under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. This is because Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 requires only that the conduct be ‘objectively unreasonable,’ while Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 also requires ‘a showing of subjective bad faith.’ (Citation.)” (Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167.)

On a procedural level, the motion fails to demonstrate any compliance with the safe harbor provisions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c)(1).) Nothing in the motion demonstrates the intent to file the motion upon the withdrawal of a certain pleading, or other form of qualifying conduct.

On a second procedural level, the court also cites to Plaintiff’s argument regarding the right to seek sanctions.

(d) 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. Subject to the limitations in paragraphs (1) and (2), 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 violation.

(1) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).

(2) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's motion unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7

Plaintiff is represented by counsel. Sanctions are therefore not available under the statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (d)(1).)

Even on the merits of the motion, the court finds any challenge to negotiation tactics and demands both privileged conduct and within the right of any party as part of their constitutional right for petition of redress of grievances.

The motion is denied.

Trial remains set for May 15, 2023.

Defendants to provide notice.