David Keichline, et al. v. Ashley Willowbrook LP, et al.

(Compton Courthouse: Dept. E) August 20, 2026 DEPARTMENT E LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT DAVID KEICHLINE, Successor-in-Interest for the estate of JEREMIAH RAYMOND KEICHLINE, deceased; CLAUDIA LOPEZ, an individual Plaintiffs, vs. ASHLEY WILLOWBROOK LP; ASHLEY WILLOWBROOK GP LLC; THE INTEGRAL GROUP LLC; CRCD LLC; And DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS |))))))))))))))) | CASE NO: 23CMCV01566 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. Sec.Sec. 128.5, 128.7 AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL RICHARD W. VANIS AND BRANDON S. KELLY AND THE LAW FIRM OF MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,500.00 DATE: August 20, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M. DEPT.: E | Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Mason

Keichline, Successor-in-Interest for the Estate of Jeremiah Raymond Keichline, deceased and Claudia Lopez Responding Parties: Defendants Ashley Willowbrook LP and Ashley Willowbrook GP LLC Notice: Ok SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT I. BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death and survival action. Plaintiffs David Keichline, as successor-in-interest for the estate of Jeremiah Raymond Keichline ("David"), Claudia Lopez ("Lopez"), and Mason Keichline ("Mason")(collectively, the "Plaintiffs") allege that on April 1, 2023 Jeremiah Raymond Keichline ("Decedent") was shot and killed at 11739 Homes Ave,. Los Angeles, CA 90059 (the "Property").

Plaintiffs allege that the Property was, at all relevant times, owned and operated by Defendant Ashley Willowbrook LP and Ashley Willowbrook GP LLC (collectively, "Defendants") and that Defendants failed to maintain and secure the Property to prevent foreseeable harm to tenants, guest, invitees, and the public, including Decedent, thereby causing Decedent's death.

On September 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint against Ashley Willowbrook LP, Ashley Willowbrook GP LLC, The Integral Group LLC, CRCD LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Wrongful Death Caused by Negligence; (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Continuation of Decedent's Cause of Action (Survival Action).

On August 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their operative Second Amended Complaint against Ashley Willowbrook LP, Ashley Willowbrook GP LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Wrongful Death Caused by Negligence; (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Continuation of Decedent's Cause of Action (Survival Action).

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 1, 2025. On March 2, 2026, the Court entered an Order denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (the "MSJ"). (See Minute Order, 3/2/26.)

On January 28, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to C.C.P. Sec.Sec. 128.5 and 128.7. On March 13, 2026, Defendants filed an Opposition. On July 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards

1. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 128.7

A motion for sanctions can be brought against an attorney or a party for presenting to the court a frivolous paper or a paper for an improper purpose. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 128.7.)¿To prevail on a motion for sanctions under Section 128.7 [1], the movant must establish that (1) a challengeable paper (2) was presented to the court and (3) the paper was frivolous (i.e., without legal or factual merit) or brought for an improper purpose. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 128.7(b), (c).)¿Sanctions under Section 128.7 may only be awarded if a party or attorney's conduct was objectively unreasonable. (In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 133.)

Section 128.7 is modeled after, and nearly identical to, the 1993 amended version of FRCP 11. (Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167 (" Guillemin "); see Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175, 190 (" Bucur ").) When the California Legislature enacted Sec. 128.7, it also adopted the Advisory Committee's notes to Rule 11 as a statement of legislative intent. (Barnes v. Department of Corr. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 126, 132 (" Barnes ").) Thus, cases interpreting the amended FRCP 11 and the Advisory Committee's notes to Rule 11 can be used as persuasive authority. (See Bucur, supra, at p. 190; see, e.g., Barnes, supra, at p. 136 (court relied on Advisory Committee's notes to conclude that formal, rather than informal, notice is required under Section 128.7).)¿

"As with Rule 11 (28 U.S.C.) sanctions, Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 sanctions should be 'made with restraint' [citation], and are not mandatory even if a claim is frivolous. [Citations.] Further, when determining whether sanctions should be imposed, the issue is not merely whether the party would prevail on the underlying factual or legal argument.¿ Instead, courts should apply an objective test of reasonableness, including whether 'any reasonable attorney would agree that [the claim] is totally and completely without merit.' [Citations.] Thus, the fact that a plaintiff fails to provide a sufficient showing to overcome a demurrer or to survive summary judgment is not, in itself, enough to warrant the imposition of sanctions. [Citations.]" (Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 448.)

2. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 128.5

Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 128.5 provides that "a trial court may 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."

"'Actions or tactics' include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 128.5(b)(1).)

"'Frivolous' means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party." (Id., Sec. 128.5(b)(2).)

"'A bad faith action or tactic is considered 'frivolous' if it is 'totally and completely without merit' or instituted 'for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.''" (In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 135 (quoting Levy v. Blum (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 625, 635)(" Levy ").)

"'Whether an action is frivolous is governed by an objective standard: any reasonable attorney would agree it is totally and completely without merit.'" (Id. (quoting Levy, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at 635).)

"'There must also be a showing of an improper purpose, i.e., subjective bad faith on the party of the attorney or party to be sanctioned.'" (Id. (quoting Levy, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at 635).)

"'Section 128.5 requires much more than a party acting with 'no good reason' to justify an award of sanctions.'" (Id. at 136 (quoting Levy, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at 635-36).)

"'There must be a showing not only of a meritless or frivolous action or tactic, but also of bad faith.'" (Id. (quoting Levy, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at 635-36).)

B. Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN")

In conjunction with their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion and pursuant to Evidence Code Sec. 451, Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of: (1) Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc. (1991) 498 U.S. 533 (RJN, Exh. 1); (2) Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. (1990) 496 U.S. 384 (RJN, Exh. 2); (3) Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Company (9th Cir. 1988) 859 F.2d 1336 (RJN, Exh. 3); (4) Schlaifer Nance & Co., Inc. v. Estate of Warhol (2d Cir. 1999) 194 F.3d 323 (RJN, Exh. 4); and (5) Perez v. Posse Comitatus (2d. Cir. 2004) 373 F.3d 321 (RJN, Exh. 5).

Evidence Code Sec. 451(a) mandates that "[j]udicial notice shall be taken of [] The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution." (Evid. Code Sec. 451(a).)

Each of the documents contained in Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice is a decision of a Court of the United States and, accordingly, the Court GRANT'S Plaintiff's request.

C. Evidentiary Objections

Defendants object to the Declaration of Katherine Smith filed in support of Plaintiffs' motion. As to each objection, the Court rules as follows:

Objection No. 1: SUSTAINED (Personal Knowledge, Foundation)

Objection No. 2: SUSTAINED (Personal Knowledge, Foundation)

Objection No. 3: SUSTAIEND (Personal Knowledge, Foundation)

Objection No. 4: SUSTAINED IN PART as to "of Defense counsel admitting that CRCD, LLC is an agent/partner of Defendants." (Conclusory, Argumentative). OVERRULED as to the remainder.

Objection No. 5: OVERRULED

Objection No. 6: SUSTAINED (Personal Knowledge, Foundation)

Objection No. 7: OVERRULED

Objection No. 8: OVERRULED

Objection No. 9: OVERRULED

D.

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for sanctions in the total amount of $25,500.00 against defense counsel, arguing that Defendants' MSJ was frivolous because it was "predicated on a false assertion, that they owed no duty to protect Plaintiffs from third party criminal acts, as they did not have the requisite foreseeability." (Mot., p. 2:11-12.)

Defendants oppose, arguing that no grounds exist for sanctions pursuant to either Section 128.5 or Section 128.7, Plaintiffs' opposition to their MSJ did not refute their contentions regarding duty, foreseeability or causation, and Plaintiffs' requested sanctions are both excessive and not based on competent evidence.

1. Substantiating Evidence

The Court first addresses Plaintiffs' substantiating evidence. Plaintiffs assert that defense counsel ran afoul of Sections 128.5 and 128.7 because: (1) Defendants intentionally misrepresented Jason Batiste's ("Batiste") criminal history because an intake form, "completed by Defendants' agent, Madrianna Allen - an employee of Defendants' general partner, CRCD, LLC, and Mr. Batiste's on-site case manager - states that Mr. Batiste was convicted of a felony for possession of a firearm in April of 2022" (Mot., p. 4:5-8); (2) Defendants' contention that "Mr.

Alvarado" [2] had no evidence of prior shootings or firearm use at the Property is a misrepresentation because a June 6, 2022 email from Mr. Alvarado evidences his concern with safety at the Property and request for an armed security guard (Mot., p. 5:12-26); and (3) Defendants' contention that there were only a few "noise complaints/domestic disturbances prior to April 1, 2023" was a misrepresentation because reports created by Defendants' property management reference various types of violent incidents (Id., p. 5:27-7:20).

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants ran afoul of Sections 128.5 and 128.7 because there existed triable issues of material fact regarding the foreseeable need for adequate security and conflict resolution measures at the Premises, Defendants' property manager acknowledged the need for additional security but decided against third-party monitoring, and multiple tenant complaints were ignored including repeated reports regarding Batiste's (and his girlfriend's) threatening behavior.

In short, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' MSJ was brought and premised upon misrepresentations and a willful ignorance or suppression of factual evidence.

The problem arises in Plaintiffs' presentation of the evidence which they rely upon to establish Defendants' "misrepresentations." Nearly all of the documents presented in support of the instant motion, save an email exchange with the declarant attorney Katherine Smith ("Smith") are not presented with any foundation or authentication such that they might be properly used as evidence.

Smith presents Batiste's intake form, June 6, 2022 email correspondence, an Amendment to Certificate of Limited Partnership, and Defendants' internal reports - all of which are argued to establish Defendants' violations of Sections 128.5 and 128.7 - with nothing more than the general statement "[a]ttached hereto as Exhibit [X] is a true and correct copy of . . ." (See Smith Decl., P.P. 4-8.)

Smith does not explain who created the documents, who maintained the documents, how she came into possession of any of these documents or how she, as attorney for Plaintiffs, has any personal knowledge or ability to authenticate any of the documents. Without proper authentication, the arguments presented in support of Plaintiffs' motion are simply that - arguments. But they are arguments without substantiating evidence. And "[s]tatements and arguments by counsel are not evidence." (Gdowski v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 139.)

2. Substantive Allegations

Viewed as a whole and in conjunction what remains having reviewed the admissible evidence, Plaintiffs argument for sanctions boils down to: Defendants knew that their MSJ was not a winner because there were triable issues of material fact, yet they chose to move for summary judgment anyway.

Upon review of Defendants' MSJ, however, the Court does not find misrepresentations such that defense counsel might be accused of misrepresentations to the Court or filing a frivolous motion. Defendants acknowledge in their motion for summary judgment that: (1) Bastiste had a "criminal records consisting of three felonies and dive misdemeanors, none of which involved the use of a gun or firearm" (MSJ, filed July 1, 2025, p. 8:23-24); [3] and (2) There had been "several noise/domestic disturbances reported by tenants to the property manager . . . including two informal verbal reports made by Plaintiff LOPEZ about the verbally aggressive conduct of BATISTE and his girlfriend . . ." (Id., p. 9:8-11).

Whether Defendants' acknowledgements went far enough or glossed over certain aspects (such as failing to indicate what type of "domestic disturbances" were reported and whether the overall nature of the Premises was such that the subject incident was foreseeable), what emerges is exactly the type of disagreement that the summary judgment procedure is meant to address. Plaintiffs believe that the Property, the reported behavior, and Bastiste's criminal history and actions created foreseeability. Defendants believe the opposite. Summary judgment is meant to suss out and determine those opposing viewpoints.

The Court does not find the parties' disagreement reason to sanction defense counsel either via Section 128.5 for frivolous and bad actions or tactics intended to cause unnecessary delay or via Section 128.7 for presenting arguments totally or completely without merit.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Where not otherwise specified, Code references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Upon review of the moving papers, the Court does not find an explanation as to who "Mr. Alvarado" is but, from context clues, deduces that Mr. Alvarado is the property manager of the site where the incident occurred. (See Mot., p. 5:14-16.)

Although the Court has sustained Defendants' objection to Bastise's intake form attached as Exhibit A to Smith's declaration, the Court notes the language in the intake form "possession of a firearm" and the (perhaps carefully crafted) terminology "use of a firearm" in Defendants' MSJ. "Possession" is not the same as "use" and one would be hard pressed to find an attorney who does not make that distinction when deemed necessary. Similarly, while Plaintiffs' consternation is understandable, Alvarado's declaration that he had never experienced "such a shooting" as contrasted with his June 6, 2022 email (again as to which Plaintiffs' objections have been sustained) is a matter more of deft word choice ("such" a shooting) versus active and intentional misrepresentation.

Case Number: 23CMCV01566-2 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT DAVID KEICHLINE, Successor-in-Interest for the estate of JEREMIAH RAYMOND KEICHLINE, deceased; CLAUDIA LOPEZ, an individual Plaintiffs, vs. ASHLEY WILLOWBROOK LP; ASHLEY WILLOWBROOK GP LLC; THE INTEGRAL GROUP LLC; CRCD LLC; And DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. |)))))))))))))))) | CASE NO: 23CMCV01566