Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV23696, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23696    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 6-10-25

Case # 22STCV23696 

Trial Date: 6-17-24 

SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Law Offices of L.A. Law Inc., et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Shahrzad Shahili

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Motion for Sanctions

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

Plaintiff Law Offices of L.A. Law Inc. alleges Defendant Shahrzad Shahili failed to pay for outstanding legal services rendered in association with a marital dissolution. Plaintiff alleges an outstanding balance of $32,555.57.

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit for Services Rendered, Account Stated, Book Account, and Fraud. Defendant answered the complaint on October 17, 2022, and filed a cross-complaint against F. Bari Nejadpour, Susan Winchester, and Law Offices of L.A. Law, Inc. on October 18, 2022, for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Breach of Contract, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On December 15, 2022, the court denied the motion to strike the one day after the answer filed cross-complaint. On January 30, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the cross-complaint with leave to amend. A first amended cross-complaint for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Breach of Contract, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, was filed on February 27, 2023.

On April 20, 2023, the court struck the demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint. On May 30, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint.

On June 20, 2023, the second amended cross-complaint for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Breach of Contract, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress was filed. On September 21, 2023, the court overruled the demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action, and sustained the demurrer to the second amended cross-complaint for the first, second and fifth causes of action.

On November 20, 2023, the third amended cross-complaint for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, and Breach of Contract, was filed. On January 16, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer to the Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Contract, causes of action without leave to amend, and overruled the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for fraud and deceit. Cross-Defendants answered the third amended cross-complaint on February 15, 2024.

After the December 17, 2024, bench trial, the court issued its statement of decision. On January 6, 2025, the court overruled the objections of Shahrzad Shahili to the statement of decision, and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Law Offices of L.A. Law Inc., and Cross-Defendant Bari Nejadpour, against Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Shahrzad Shahili. L.A. Law Inc. was awarded $32,605.57 on the complaint. The court found in favor of both Cross-Defendants L.A. Law Inc., and Bari Nejadpour, as well.

RULING: Off-Calendar.

Cross-Defendants, L.A. Law Inc., and Bari Nejadpour presents a motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, due to the filing of the “meritless” cross-complaint. Shahrzad Shahili in opposition maintains the cross-complaint was proper. Cross-Defendants in reply reiterates the factual basis of the motion.

The motion comes for hearing after the January 6, 2025, entry of judgment on the entire action. Although not addressed by the parties, the court must review its basis of jurisdiction to consider the motion.

A court retains jurisdiction to rule on a motion for sanctions where a party may comply with the safe harbor provision before any adjudication impacting the disposition of the case. (Day v. Collingwood (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1129.) A copy of the (proposed) motion was served on January 18, 2025—12 days after the entry of judgment dismissing the cross-complaint in favor of moving parties. The 21-day safe harbor provision period therefore only commenced after full disposition of the action thereby chronologically preventing cross-complainant from complying with the demand during the 21-day window. (Banks v. Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 949, 954 [“[A]n order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend does not bar a motion for section 128.7 sanctions unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the sanctions motion is served and filed”]; Cromwell v. Cummings (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 13 [“even if the motion had been properly served 30 days prior to filing, the request for sanctions was rendered moot by the court's ruling of April 25, which sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend”].)

In other words, compliance in the form of dismissal was impossible on the already disposed action. The safe harbor period was never operative, and the motion for sanctions null and void on the February 13, 2025, filing date. The court cannot make any finding of wrongful conduct under the sanctions standard. (See Banks v. Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 954.; Cromwell v. Cummings, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th Supp. At p. 13.)

The motion is therefore MOOT and taken OFF-CALENDAR.

Cross-Defendants to provide notice.