MOTION – SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT; MOTION - SANCTIONS
Defendant Cabin LLC’s (“Cabin” or “Defendant”) Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
128.7
Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 requires an attorney or an unrepresented party to certify, through his or her signature on documents filed with the court, that every pleading, motion or other similar paper presented to the court has merit and is not being presented for an improper purpose. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subds. (b)(1)-(4).)
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, sanctions may be imposed for pleadings that are “presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation” (id., subd. (b)(1)), pleadings with legal contentions that are frivolous (id., subd. (b)(2)), or pleadings which lack evidentiary support (id., subd. (b)(3)).
128.5
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, sanctions may be imposed against a party, the party's attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by another party due to bad faith actions or tactics taken by the offending party and/or attorney. The actions must be frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. “Frivolous” for purposes of section 128.5 means actions or tactics that are totally and completely without merit, or for the sole purpose of harassing the opposing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).)
CV00006399
DISCUSSION
Notice
The sanctions Motion served on Plaintiff on February 5, 2026 did not include a hearing date. (See Odetto Decl., Ex. A.) Thus, Defendant did not comply with the safe harbor provisions of section 128.5 or 128.7.
Both statues mandate providing notice of the hearing date and time along with the motion at least 21 days before the motion is filed. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128.7
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?”
Strict compliance with the required notice provisions serves the remedial purpose and underscores the seriousness of a motion for sanctions. (CPF Vaseo Assocs., LLC v. Gray (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 997, 1007, citing Galleria Plus, Inc., supra, at p. 538.) As one court aptly put it, close is good enough in horseshoes and hand grenades, but not in the context of the sanctions statute. (Id. Internal citations omitted.)
The lack of the hearing date rendered the subsequently-filed motion fatally defective. (Galleria Plus, Inc., supra, at p. 538.) This defect mandates denial of the Motion. Although the Court also has authority to award fees to any party successful in opposing a motion for sanctions, it declines to do so in this case based on fact that the Opposition relied exclusively on the argument that Plaintiff had not been served with the Motion until March 20, 2026, a statement that appears less than accurate in light of the Odetto Declaration. (See Odetto Decl., ¶ 3.) Should the parties contest this tentative ruling, Attorney Graves should be prepared to explain this apparent representation to the Court.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1
Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070 If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov