Sahafzadeh-Taeb v. Taeb (In re Sahafzadeh-Taeb)
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 610
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Appellant Hamid Taeb and his attorney Michelle Trigger were sanctioned under Code Civ. Proc. §128.5 after Trigger failed to appear at a scheduled family-law trial; the court awarded $3,575 in sanctions ($2,000 against Trigger personally, $1,575 against Taeb).
- Ten days before trial Trigger told the clerk she was ready and asked to be excused from a readiness conference, despite knowing a criminal trial she was handling (in Sacramento) had continued because her client unexpectedly testified.
- On the trial date Trigger was absent; her client appeared and delivered a last‑minute continuance motion and a specially appearing counsel who was unprepared to prosecute the continuance.
- Opposing counsel had to appear and later moved for sanctions under §128.5, asserting wasted time and fees and Trigger’s failure to comply with pretrial orders.
- The trial court found Trigger misrepresented readiness, failed to notify the court or opposing counsel in the 10 days before trial, and delayed seeking relief until the case was called; it imposed sanctions on Trigger (affirmed) but reversed as to Taeb (reversed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Respondent) | Defendant's Argument (Trigger/Taeb) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §128.5 sanctions are governed by a subjective or objective bad‑faith standard | §128.5 requires subjective bad faith; Legislature reversed San Diegans and restored subjective standard | Trigger relied on earlier authority (San Diegans) but Legislature clarified subjective bad faith controls | The court held §128.5 requires subjective bad faith (post‑2017 amendments) |
| Whether Trigger’s conduct (misrepresenting readiness; failing to notify) supported §128.5 sanctions | Conduct was frivolous and committed in subjective bad faith to harass/manipulate the court and opponent | Trigger said the overlap of trials was beyond her control, she arranged a special appearance, and there was insufficient evidentiary hearing | Court held the record supported sanctions: her misrepresentations and delay were within her control and could support an inference of subjective bad faith |
| Whether Taeb (client) could be sanctioned personally for Trigger’s conduct | Respondent sought fees from both client and attorney | Taeb argued he merely relayed counsel’s statements and lacked knowledge of misrepresentations | Court reversed sanctions as to Taeb: no evidence he knew of Trigger’s misrepresentations or could have prevented costs |
| Whether procedural safeguards (notice, evidentiary hearing, safe harbor, OSC) were required here | Respondent argued motion procedure and on‑record handling were adequate | Trigger argued lack of separate motion/hearing, failure to apply safe harbor, and inadequate opportunity to present evidence | Court held procedural objections waived or inapplicable: motion was filed, Trigger agreed to brief the issue, safe harbor didn’t apply to this type of misconduct, and no OSC was required when sanctions imposed by motion |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (held §128.5 applied objective standard pre‑2017 amendments)
- Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Southern SARMs, Inc., 20 Cal.App.5th 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (discusses §128.5 revival and impact of San Diegans; legislative response)
- Levy v. Blum, 92 Cal.App.4th 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (articulates §128.5 requires subjective bad faith plus frivolousness)
- In re Marriage of Gumabao, 150 Cal.App.3d 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (sanctions for counsel’s failure to appear and misleading the court upheld)
- West Coast Dev. v. Reed, 2 Cal.App.4th 693 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (affirmed sanctions where counsel’s conduct forced opposing counsel to prepare and travel needlessly)
- Dolan v. Buena Engineers, Inc., 24 Cal.App.4th 1500 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (explains appellate presumptions regarding implied findings of bad faith and abuse‑of‑discretion review)