Cross-Complainants Did Fess Up To The Problem, With The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Sanctions Hearing Further Showing No Abuse Of Discretion In The Denial Of The Sanctions Request.
Although we take the cases as we find them for posting purposes, the next one was a dispute over an apparent snafu in sending a car repair settlement check of $10,511.74 to MAACO, which might have been absconded by someone but resulted in a cross-claim and then a subsequent SLAPP motion as to the cross-complaint. That led to more litigation, namely the appellate opinion in Mora v. Menjivar, Case No. A169997 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 12, 2025) (published; discussion on sanctions motion unpublished). You can judge, for yourselves, whether litigation and judicial resources were served with what happened in this case.
Plaintiff’s SLAPP motion leveled at the defense’s cross-complaint was denied. And, that result was affirmed on appeal. Everyone should read this, because it does discuss timeliness of SLAPP filings, confirming that a supporting memorandum and declarations must be filed within the 60-day deadline for filing SLAPP motions with respect to having a motion timely considered. With respect to the sanctions motion by plaintiff, it was directed to a misstatement that plaintiff had received the settlement payment, which was corrected as being mistaken—as well as admitted to. The denial of the sanctions motion based on these circumstances was no abuse of discretion, not to mention that plaintiff did not provide a reporter’s transcript to show the lower court’s decision-making on such discretionary motion was erroneous.
Comments