24 Cal. App. 5th 993
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Moofly Productions and its attorney Riley were sanctioned $10,499.51 after the trial court granted terminating sanctions and denied Moofly’s subsequent motion for relief (filed as a § 473 motion but treated as a § 1008 motion for reconsideration).
- Defendants argued Moofly’s post-termination motion was really a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 and requested sanctions; the court issued an order to show cause and simultaneously denied the motion.
- The trial court found Moofly abused discovery and had acted in disregard of court orders; Moofly does not appeal the terminating sanctions, only the monetary sanctions for the reconsideration motion.
- Moofly contended the court failed to provide the 21-day safe-harbor required by CCP § 128.7(c)(2) before imposing sanctions under § 1008(d), while defendants argued § 1008 sanctions need not follow § 128.7 procedures.
- The trial court also considered (and rejected) arguments about Moofly’s corporate suspension by the Franchise Tax Board; Moofly was later revived and its acts validated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions under CCP § 1008(d) must comply with CCP § 128.7 procedures (including 21‑day safe harbor) | § 1008(d) incorporates § 128.7, so its safe harbor applies and the court must allow 21 days to withdraw/correct | § 1008(d) permits sanctions “as allowed by § 128.7,” but contempt is an alternative and § 128.7 safe harbor is not required | Held: § 128.7 procedures (including safe harbor) apply when imposing sanctions under § 1008(d) |
| Whether the court complied with § 128.7 when it denied the motion and issued an order to show cause at the same time | The court deprived Moofly of the required 21‑day period to withdraw the offending paper, so sanctions are improper | The court followed the court‑initiated sanction process under § 128.7(c)(2) and could proceed | Held: Court erred—issuing the ruling and order to show cause simultaneously eliminated the safe‑harbor and renders sanctions invalid |
| Whether Moofly’s corporate suspension rendered its opposition void or justified sanctions | Suspension does not render all litigation acts void; revival validates prior acts and does not excuse denial of safe harbor | Suspension justified treating Moofly’s filings as defective and counsel sanctionable | Held: Suspension did not validate the sanctions; Moofly was later revived and its acts were validated, so suspension did not cure the safe‑harbor defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Optimal Markets, Inc. v. Salant, 221 Cal.App.4th 912 (2013) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation)
- Moore v. Shaw, 116 Cal.App.4th 182 (2004) (reference to § 128.5 in anti‑SLAPP statute requires using § 128.5 procedures)
- Barnes v. Department of Corrections, 74 Cal.App.4th 126 (1999) (party must be given opportunity to withdraw challenged paper before court disposes of it)
- Young v. Rosenthal, 212 Cal.App.3d 96 (1989) (motions for reconsideration upheld as sanctionable when clearly frivolous and in bad faith)
- Lucas v. Santa Maria Pub. Airport Dist., 39 Cal.App.4th 1017 (1995) (reversing sanctions where court failed to find bad faith or frivolousness)
- Peacock Hill Assn. v. Peacock Lagoon Constr. Co., 8 Cal.3d 369 (1972) (corporate revival validates earlier acts)
- Bourhis v. Lord, 56 Cal.4th 320 (2013) (revival after suspension validates prior corporate acts)