Sanctions: CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Of $7,500 Reversed On Multiple Grounds

Case Is A Primer On Procedural And Substantive Requirements To Meet Under 128.5.

               In Ramirez v. Ramirez, Case No. B336369 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 18. 2024) (unpublished), appellant in a probate case obtained a reversal of a $7,500 CCP § 128.5 sanctions award in favor of respondent with respect to appellant’s request to disqualify an opponent’s counsel.  Here are the takeaways which led to the reversal:

• • • No separate sanction motion. The winning party at the trial court level did not file a separate motion for sanctions, with the filing of a request in a response to a formal notice of motion on the merits not sufficing to meet the sanctions motion separate request requirement.
    • Failure to satisfy 21-day safe harbor notice requirement. Winning party below failed to give the safe harbor notice such that the opponent did have the opportunity to react.  (Zarate v. McDaniel, 97 Cal.App.5^th 484, 489 (2023).)
    • Due process rights on the merits ruling. The losing party would have not anticipated an adverse sanctions order without having proper notice on numerous grounds unrelated to the merits ruling.
    • The disqualification issue was not frivolous. Based on a split decision on appellate courts on the standing issue, the merits ruling against the losing party was not one where it could be deemed that the contested issue was frivolous in nature.
    • Lack of specific findings as to sanctionable conduct. A summary order on sanctions does not satisfy the 128.5 requirements for specificity on findings to support sanctionable conduct.