Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms Imposition Of Section 128.7 Sanctions Against Plaintiff Who Filed Second Amended Complaint With Factually And Legally Frivolous Allegations

Plaintiff’s Filing Of A Third Amended Complaint Did Not Render Defendant’s Sanctions Motion Moot Because Third Amended Complaint Was Filed After Defendant Filed Sanctions Motion, Not Beforehand During The 21-Day Safe Harbor Period

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, an attorney or self-represented party makes an implied “certification” as to the legal and factual merit of pleadings, motions or similar papers he or she submits.  A violation of this certification subjects the attorney or self-represented party to sanctions.  “[T]here are basically three types of submitted papers that warrant sanctions: factually frivolous (not well grounded in fact); legally frivolous (not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law); and papers interposed for an improper purpose.” (Guillemin v. Stein, 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167 (2002).)

            In Kravchuk v. Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, Case No. H048858 (6^th Dist. June 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff’s original complaint against the developer/seller with which she had entered into a written contract for the purchase and sale of real property contained one cause of action for breach of contract.  Two-and-a-half years into the litigation, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint containing six additional causes of action and eight additional defendants.  In response, developer/seller filed a partially successful motion to strike and partially successful demurrer.  Additionally, developer/seller filed a motion for sanctions under section 128.7 – claiming that allegations in plaintiff’s second amended complaint lacked factual or legal support and were contradicted by exhibits plaintiff herself had attached to the second amended complaint and by deposition testimony. The trial court granted defendant’s request for the $8,220 it incurred in preparing the sanctions motion, but denied without prejudice the $12,552 defendant incurred preparing and filing the demurrer and motion to strike.

            Plaintiff appealed, but the Sixth District found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.  Plaintiff’s argument that her filing of a third amended complaint rendered the sanctions motion moot failed based on the timeline of the filings.  Plaintiff filed her third amended complaint after the sanctions motion was filed – not during the 21-day safe harbor period she had to rectify the sanctionable conduct before defendant filed the sanctions motion.  (See Eichenbaum v. Alon, 106 Cal.App.4th 967 (2003).)  Additionally, the appellate panel found substantial grounds existed for the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff – in her second amended complaint – made a number of factually frivolous allegations, and a prayer for attorney fees that was legally frivolous based on the written contract between the parties as well as a stipulation signed by plaintiff’s former attorney that each side was to bear her/its own attorney fees.