JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al.

Plaintiffs opposed the Motion and requested an award of $99,590.00 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for opposing this Motion. (Opp’n to Mot. Sanctions, July 9, 2026.)

In mid-July 2026, the Court granted Spieker Partners’ application to continue the hearing on this Motion, and reset the hearing on August 12, 2026. (Order Granting Defs.’ Ex Parte Appl. Order Continuing Hr’g, July 15, 2026.)

II.

Legal Standard

By signing a pleading, an attorney certifies to the best of their knowledge that the pleading was not filed “primarily for an improper purpose” and that the factual allegations have or will likely have—“after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”—evidentiary support. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b)(1), (3).)

A court may sanction an attorney, law firm, or other parties for violations of section 128.7(b) after providing notice and the alleged offending party with a reasonable opportunity to respond. (§ 128.7(c).) “A claim is factually frivolous if it is ‘not well grounded in fact’ . . . .” (Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 175, 189 (quoting Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 156, 167).) In assessing whether a claim is factually frivolous, the court applies an objective standard of reasonableness. (See Bockrath v.

Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 71, 82 (“We measure the truth-finding inquiry's reasonableness under an objective standard . . . .”).) Under this standard, the court must examine “whether any reasonable person would agree that the point is totally and completely devoid of merit.” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 637, 649.) “[T]he evidentiary burden to escape sanctions under section 128.7 is light.” (Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 Cal. App. 5th 1110, 1126.)

III.

Discussion

A. Spieker Partners’ Motion for Sanctions The Court denies the Motion as Spieker Partners did not persuasively show that the allegations are factually frivolous. As shown throughout their opposition (see Opp’n 5:4–8:4), Plaintiffs have relied on statements and representations by Spieker Partners, Ned Spieker, Continuing Life, and Stoneridge Creek to form their belief concerning Spieker Partners’ involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. (See, e.g., Eldredge Decl. Opp’n to Mot. Sanctions Ex. 12, at 2, July 9, 2026 (describing Spieker Partners as owning and operating senior communities in California).)

The Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs made a reasonable inquiry into the merits of their claim against Spieker Partners. (See Kumar, 71 Cal. App. 5th at 1126 (“Kumar must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to demonstrate that he made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and entertained a good faith belief in the merits of the claim.”).)

In passing, the Court notes that Spieker Partners’ Motion relied on the implied legal proposition

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Continuing Life LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 396118138673 in Department 18 that the Court must view all the facts most favorably to it and against Plaintiffs in assessing whether Plaintiffs’ claims are factually frivolous. (See, e.g. Mot. 9:12–13 (“A plaintiff violates section 128.7 if, after being credibly informed about a defendant’s lack of involvement in the alleged wrongdoing, the plaintiff still files a complaint against that defendant.”) (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., id. 11:1–2 (“Indeed, the [Third Amended Complaint] confirms that [Plaintiffs’] allegations against [Spieker Partners] stem from mere speculation, hearsay, and inuendo.”).) Spieker Partners did not identify any authority for this precise implied proposition.

The Court did not find Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp. persuasive. (9th Cir. 1990) 929 F.2d 1358.) There, the appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiff’s allegations against a law firm were frivolous. (Id. at 1366.) Before the district court, the law firm provided affidavits that it was not involved in the acts giving rise to the action. (Id. at 1366.) The plaintiff did not submit any information or evidence to controvert those affidavits, and instead filed an amended complaint still naming the law firm as a defendant. (Id.)

The district court found that the plaintiff did not inquire into the facts before amending his complaint; and thus, that the filing was frivolous. (Id.) But that is not the situation before the Court. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs have produced information to controvert Spieker Partners’ declaration that it does not own or operate Stoneridge Creek. Accordingly, unlike Townsend, there is sufficient evidence that Plaintiffs made a reasonable inquiry into the facts before filing their pleadings.

The Court overrules Spieker Partners’ objections submitted on reply. (See Objs. Evid. Supp. Reply Mem., July 15, 2026.) Spieker Partners’ objections concern admissibility of the information at trial. These objections may have been well taken had Spieker Partners moved for summary judgment. But here, the issue here was whether Plaintiffs made a reasonable inquiry into the merits of their claim against Spieker Partners, not whether Plaintiffs currently have admissible evidence to support their claim against Spieker Partners.

B. Plaintiffs Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs “If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(f)(1)(C).) Here, the Court does not find it appropriate to award Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for prevailing on this Motion.

IV. Orders The Motion is denied.

The Court overrules all objections.

***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Continuing Life LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 396118138673 in Department 18

The Motion for Sanctions filed by Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC, Continuing Life LLC, Spieker Senior Development Partners LLC on 06/23/2026 is Denied.

The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.