The Rule of J.N. et al. v. Jeffrey Goldberg is that a motion for Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 sanctions must comply with statutory notice requirements by specifying the hearing date in the initial notice of motion to trigger the mandatory 21-day safe harbor period, under circumstances where the superior court's electronic Court Reservation System makes it impossible to obtain a hearing date more than three days in advance but the safe harbor period requires 21 days.
Appeal from judgment after order granting sanctions motion in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
Defendant Appellant was Jeffrey Goldberg — the defendant who sought section 128.7 sanctions based on alleged frivolity of the complaint.
Plaintiff Respondents were J.N. (through guardian ad litem Brian Nadley), Jordan Nadley, and Jakob Nadley — the plaintiffs who filed suit for financial elder abuse and opposed the sanctions motion.
The suit sounded in financial elder abuse by way of fraud or undue influence and intentional misrepresentation.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were [Not determinable from opinion text - underlying facts of the elder abuse claim are not detailed in the opinion].
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted defendant's section 128.7 sanctions motion and awarded $19,285 in fees and costs, ruling that defendant was exempt from the notice requirement because the court's mandatory electronic filing system did not permit motion dates to be reserved more than three days before filing, making it impossible to comply with the 21-day safe harbor period while including a hearing date in the initial notice.
The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether defendant's failure to specify a hearing date in the initial notice of motion for section 128.7 sanctions rendered the motion fatally defective despite the superior court's Court Reservation System preventing compliance with both the three-day filing requirement and 21-day safe harbor period.
The Appellate Court held that strict compliance with section 128.7's notice requirements is mandatory, and the electronic Court Reservation System's limitations do not excuse failure to include a hearing date in the initial notice of motion, requiring reversal of the sanctions order because the safe harbor period never properly began.
The case is inapplicable when the superior court has modified its electronic filing system to exempt sanctions motions from filing deadlines that interfere with statutory notice requirements, or when a litigant obtains an ex parte order allowing them to set a hearing more than 21 days after service.
The case leaves open whether trial courts must grant ex parte motions to work around Court Reservation System limitations for sanctions motions, and whether other procedural workarounds might satisfy the notice requirements.
Counsel
For Appellant: Sorrentino & Associates, Paul F. Sorrentino and Vincent P. Sorrentino
For Respondent: Gutman Law, Alan S. Gutman and Matthew E. Hess