Razuki v. Malan CA4/1, D082560

Salam Razuki filed a civil lawsuit against Ninus Malan and others concerning disputes over business dealings, specifically relating to marijuana businesses.
During the pendency of the civil case, Razuki was criminally charged and later pled guilty to conspiring to kidnap Malan in a plot related to the litigation.
Malan sought monetary sanctions in the civil case under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5, claiming Razuki’s criminal conduct was intended to harass and delay the civil proceedings.
The trial court granted Malan's motion for sanctions, awarding $200,000 for litigation expenses due to Razuki's bad faith actions.
Razuki appealed, challenging both the legal basis for sanctions and the evidentiary/procedural foundation for the award.
The appellate court affirmed the finding of sanctionable conduct but reversed the $200,000 sanction for lack of proof that the amount was directly incurred as a result of Razuki’s actions, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether criminal conduct is sanctionable under § 128.5	Criminal conduct cannot be sanctioned by § 128.5	Criminal conduct done in bad faith to harass is sanctionable	Court: Criminal conduct can be sanctionable if in bad faith
Sufficiency & admissibility of evidence for bad faith	Evidence (esp. from criminal case) was hearsay/insufficient	Declarations and plea admitted conduct and harm	Court: Sufficient admissible evidence supports finding of bad faith
Timeliness and procedural defects in sanctions motion	Motion was untimely and lacked specificity on amount	No prejudice by one-day delay and amount adequately disclosed	Court: Technical defects did not prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether sanctions award must relate to expenses incurred	Award was arbitrary, unsupported by specific expenses	Opposing view; sanctions need not be tightly linked to expenses	Court: Sanction to opposing party must reflect direct expenses incurred, not arbitrary; reversed and remanded
Effect of pending criminal appeal on civil sanctions	Proceeding with sanctions undermined Fifth Amendment rights	No automatic stay required for related civil issues	Court: No violation of Fifth Amendment or need to stay civil matter

People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (Cal. 2017) (addresses statutory interpretation principles)
Summers v. City of Cathedral City, 225 Cal.App.3d 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (discusses meaning of "bad faith" in sanction context)
Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 194 Cal.App.4th 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate waiver and requirement to present supported arguments)
In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb, 39 Cal.App.5th 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (defining bad faith under section 128.5)
People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 (Cal. 1975) (no constitutional right to stay civil proceedings pending resolution of related criminal case)
Jensen v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.App.5th 1003 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing trial court decisions)