Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court, False Proof of Service, Misconduct by Plaintiff’s Counsel and Process Server, and Direct Liability of Plaintiff American Express National Bank
July 7, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 13 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 5 25-CLJ-05691 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS YARON ASHER
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK AARON N. BALDARO YARON ASHER PRO SE
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT, FALSE PROOF OF SERVICE, MISCONDUCT BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AND PROCESS SERVER, AND DIRECT LIABILITY OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Aaron Yasher’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Sanction is DENIED.
Procedural background
Plaintiff American Express National Bank (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against Defendant on July 28, 2025. Thereafter, Defendant filed and served a Motion to Quash Service of Summons, a Motion to Strike the Proof of Service of the Summons and Related Filings, and a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. On March 3, 2026, the court denied Defendant’s Motion to Quash and Motion to Strike, and it denied as moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
On March 25, 2026, Defendant filed and served a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Quash Service of Summons. Defendant’s reconsideration motion argued that the process server, Stacey Soloman (“Soloman”), could not have served Defendant with the summons and complaint as stated in the proof of service. The court denied the reconsideration motion.
Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions
Defendant now moves for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 128.7, 128, subdivision (a)(4), and 177.5. Defendant once again argues that he could not have been served with the summons and complaint as claimed in the proof of service, and therefore he seeks sanctions based on a purported fraud by Soloman, Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff for the proof of service and opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash.
Code of Civil Procedure Sections 128.5 and 128.7
Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 authorizes the court to “order a party, the party's attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
July 7, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Id., at § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b), also allows the court to impose sanctions. Defendant seeks sanctions under the part of section 128.7 which provides that by presenting to the court a pleading, motion or other similar paper, an attorney is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, “[t]he allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b)(3).)
Section 128.5 requires showing a subjective bad faith in taking the frivolous action or tactic, whereas section 128.7 requires a court to find only that a party’s or attorney’s conduct is objectively unreasonable. (In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 132-134.)
Defendant fails to establish that the filing of the proof of service of the summons and complaint and opposition to the Motion to Quash were objectively unreasonable. Soloman signed a declaration under penalty of perjury claiming personal service on Defendant and also provided a declaration to this effect. As the court found in denying Defendant’s Motion to Quash, a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption that the facts stated in the declaration are true. (Evid. Code, § 647.) Thus, Plaintiff’s reliance on Soloman’s declaration of service was not objectively unreasonable.
Likewise, Defendant fails to establish that sanctions are warranted under section 128.5 based on bad faith. Defendant has not proffered any evidence to support that these actions were taken by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel with subjective bad faith and were frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Further, Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 448, does not support Defendant’s argument as it involved sanctions under section 128.7, not section 128.5.
Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, subdivision (a)(4), and 177.5
The court has the power to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(4).)
The court also has the power to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1,500, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5.)
Defendant fails to show that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel violated a judgment, court order or process. As such, the court finds that sanctions are not warranted under these sections.
July 7, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 15 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ Conclusion
Defendant fails to establish that sanctions are warranted under any of these authorities. The request for sanctions and the related relief are therefore DENIED.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.