United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC
36 Cal. App. 5th 142
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- United Grand sued Malibu Hillbillies and guarantor Marcie Stollof in 2014 for unpaid commercial rent (original claim ~ $46k; initial judgment ~ $67k including fees). Default judgments were entered; United Grand then pursued substantial post‑judgment attorney fees (memoranda seeking many multiples of the underlying debt).
- Stollof moved to set aside the default; the trial court vacated the default as to Stollof. While proceedings continued, Stollof deposited the unpaid rent + interest with the court; United Grand withdrew those funds.
- The trial court found pervasive misconduct by United Grand and/or its attorney Cyrus Sanai for aggressive, multiplicative fee demands and litigation conduct, struck United Grand’s prayer for attorney fees as a partial terminating sanction, and entered judgment awarding only the amount Stollof had already paid.
- United Grand and Sanai appealed multiple orders (dismissal of fee claim, sanctions, injunction dissolution, denial of appellate fees). Many of United Grand’s appellate arguments were found procedurally deficient or forfeited for lack of cogent briefing and record citations.
- Sanai was separately sanctioned, found in contempt for failure to pay court‑ordered sanctions/fees, issued a bench warrant for failing to surrender, and his appeal of the February 2017 sanctions orders was dismissed under the appellate disentitlement doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in striking plaintiff’s prayer for attorney fees as a terminating sanction | United Grand: no legal basis; court lacked jurisdiction; no adequate notice; contractual fees should be enforced | Stollof: trial court properly exercised inherent authority for terminating sanction given pervasive misconduct and procedural history | Court: affirm—United Grand forfeited many arguments; remaining claims meritless; court had authority and factual basis to strike fee request |
| Sufficiency of misconduct findings supporting sanction | United Grand: findings unsupported by substantial evidence; many accused acts were proper litigation conduct | Stollof: record (briefs, declarations, procedural history) showed repeated misconduct, vexatious tactics, refusal to comply with orders | Court: United Grand forfeited many challenges and ignored large swathes of the court’s findings; misconduct findings supported dismissal of fee claim |
| Due process / lack of notice of intention to strike fees | United Grand: order deprived it of notice and opportunity to respond | Stollof: extensive OSC, briefing, and hearings provided procedural safeguards | Court: forfeited; record showed notice and opportunity to be heard; no due process violation established |
| Appealability / disentitlement of Sanai’s appeal from sanctions | Sanai: appealed February 2017 sanctions orders | Stollof / real party: Sanai willfully disobeyed sanctions, was found in contempt, failed to surrender, issued bench warrant; appellate disentitlement applies | Court: dismissed Sanai’s appeal under disentitlement doctrine as discretionary sanction for willful noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Santa Maria v. Adam, 211 Cal.App.4th 266 (2012) (appellant must supply cogent argument with record citations to demonstrate error)
- Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd., 34 Cal.App.4th 1826 (1995) (brief must state each point under a separate heading to prevent forfeiture)
- Pizarro v. Reynoso, 10 Cal.App.5th 172 (2017) (failure to identify issues by heading forfeits them)
- Del Junco v. Hufnagel, 150 Cal.App.4th 789 (2007) (dismissal as sanction appropriate in extreme situations; both party and counsel can be at fault)
- Nwosu v. Uba, 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 (2004) (issues unsupported by record citations may be deemed waived)
- Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc., 215 Cal.App.4th 1225 (2013) (disentitlement doctrine permits dismissal of appeals for refusal to comply with lower court orders)
- Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc., 238 Cal.App.4th 259 (2015) (disentitlement especially apt where appeal challenges the very order disobeyed)
- Bauguess v. Paine, 22 Cal.3d 626 (1978) (addresses limits on trial court authority—cited by party though court distinguished applicability)
- Hodjat v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 211 Cal.App.4th 1 (2012) (court requires explanation how cited authority applies to appellant’s facts)