Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Plaintiff in pro per Vay Williams (“Plaintiff”) for sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Background

This is a personal injury action arising out of a massage which Plaintiff received at a “Happy Day Spa” on Stockton Boulevard in Sacramento on April 6, 2018. The original complaint filed on October 5, 2020 alleges that the masseuse, known only as “Coco,” applied “excessive pressure” to Plaintiff’s back and caused injury.

As pertinent here, on December 31, 2024, Changjiang Li (Doe 7) (“Defendant Li”) filed a motion for sanctions, pursuant to code of civil procedure section 128.7, against Plaintiff. On May 7, 2025, the Court denied Defendant Li’s motion for sanctions on grounds that Defendant Li failed to comply with the safe-harbor requirements pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 129/7(c)(1). (5/7/25 Order.) On May 7, 2025, the Court also granted Defendant Li’s unopposed motion to quash service of summons and complaint.

Through this motion, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Li and Defendant’s counsel, Lisa Liu (“Counsel”), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 128.7. (Ntc. Mot.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Li and Counsel violated California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.7(b)(1)-(4); California Civil Code 45 and 45a, and California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a)-(b) (3)- (5); 4.1(a); 8.4(c) and 8.4(d), and thus, sanctions should be awarded pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. (Ibid.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil procedure section 128.7 “applies in only limited circumstances.” (Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1110, 1120.) The statute “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 514.) Under section 128.7, an attorney or unrepresented party who files “a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper” with the court certifies that the filing is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, that the contentions contained therein are warranted and nonfrivolous, that the factual allegations have or are likely to have after reasonable opportunity for investigation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

evidentiary support, and that the denials of factual contentions are warranted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(b)(1)-(4).) Violation of any of the certifications delineated in section 128.7(b) may give rise to sanctions. (Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 967, 976.) “Because our adversary system requires that attorneys and litigants be provided substantial breathing room to develop and assert factual and legal arguments, sanctions should not be routinely or easily awarded even for a claim that is arguably frivolous.

Courts must carefully consider the circumstances before awarding sanctions.” (Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 448.) The party moving for sanctions has the burden to show that sanctions are warranted. (Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 422.) Moreover, even if the Court determines sanctionable conduct has occurred, the Court may within its discretion decline to impose any sanctions. (Id. at p. 421; Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(c).)

The certifications are measured under an objective standard:

A claim is factually frivolous if it is “not well grounded in fact” and it is legally frivolous if it is “not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” In either case, to obtain sanctions, the moving party must show the party’s conduct in asserting the claim was objectively unreasonable. A claim is objectively unreasonable if “any reasonable attorney would agree that [it] is totally and completely without merit.”

(Peake, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 440, citations omitted.)

Violation of this standard subjects an attorney to sanctions which are sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(d).)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff specifies that she makes her request for sanctions on the following grounds:

(1) The allegations in Defendant Li’s Motion for Sanctions, the contents of which were filed and sworn to under oath by Attorney Liu are libelous and untrue; (2) Defendant Li’s Motion for Sanctions was frivolously filed and unnecessary, given that it was filed after Plaintiff had agreed in good faith – both verbally and in writing – as early as mid-December to dismiss Defendant Li from these proceedings, and (3) The Motion was filed in bad faith by Counsel as a money grab for herself.

Plaintiff requests sanctions “as a punitive measure, as well as to deter Attorney Liu and Defendant Li from filing such frivolous and libelous motions with the Court in the future.” (Mov. P&A, p. 16:16-17.) Plaintiff requests sanctions against Counsel in the amount of $1000.00; that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions be stricken from the record; that Defendant Li

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

and Counsel be sanctioned jointly and severally in the amount of $5000.00, payable to Public Counsel; and that Defendant Li and Counsel be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs[1]. (Id. at p. 16:17-25.)

Defendant Li opposes the motion.[2] In opposition, Defendant Li argues that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper and barred by law as Defendant Li has been dismissed from this matter; Plaintiff failed to comply with the safe-harbor requirements pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(c)(1); Plaintiff’s motion is retaliatory and frivolous; and Plaintiff’s motion lacks merit. In opposing this motion, Defendant Li also requests sanctions, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, in the amount of $1,500, payable to the Legal Aid Association of California; $2,000 in attorney fees for responding to Plaintiff’s frivolous motion; and $10,470.85 for costs incurred in defending against Plaintiff’s frivolous litigation. (Oppos., p. 9:21-25.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 expressly provides the offending attorney or party with 21 days from receipt of a notice of motion or order to show cause re sanctions to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged matter. (Code Civ. Proc., §?128.7(c)(1), (2).) The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by withdrawing the improper pleading during the statutory safe harbor period without penalty, saving the court and the parties time and money litigating the pleading as well as the sanctions request. (CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v.

Gray (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 997, 1003; Galleria Plus v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538; Li v. Majestic Industrial Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 585, 591 [safe harbor period indicates Code Civ. Proc. §?128.7 is remedial, not punitive]; Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. McKenzie (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 681, 692; Malovec v. Hamrell (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 434, 441.) Strict compliance with the 21?day safe harbor period is required. (Transcon Fin., Inc. v Reid & Hellyer, APC (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 547, 551.)

A number of appellate courts have recognized, albeit in somewhat different contexts, that once the offending pleading or motion is resolved, the party who filed it has no opportunity to take the corrective action contemplated by the safe harbor provision and an award of sanctions is not proper. (See Day v. Collingwood (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1128 [courts in a number of cases “have concluded that a motion for sanctions under section 128.7 that is not served sufficiently in advance of a dispositive ruling on the challenged pleading fails to comply with the safe harbor provision set forth in section 128.7, subdivision (c)(1)”]; Malovec, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 442 [“‘party seeking sanctions must leave sufficient opportunity for the opposing party to choose whether to withdraw or cure the offense voluntarily before the court disposes of the challenged contention’”].)

Here, as stated above, Plaintiff’s motion is based upon Defendant Li’s motion for sanctions, filed on December 31, 2024, and which the Court denied on May 7, 2025. Notably, the corresponding proof of service for this motion reflects that Defendant Li was not served until July 28, 2025. As Plaintiff did not serve this motion until after the Court’s ruling on Defendant Li’s motion, the parties are unable to comply with the safe-harbor requirements pursuant to Code of Civil

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

Procedure section 128.7(c)(1), and this motion must be DENIED. Indeed, the purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by withdrawing the improper pleading during the statutory safe harbor period without penalty.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Li’s request for sanctions is also DENIED. A motion for sanctions pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is not properly requested in opposition to a motion as it requires a separately notice motion, and further, among other things, compliance with the safe-harbor period as described in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(c)(1) must first be made.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] To the extent that Plaintiff requests fees, The Court rejects this request as it is improper.

Self’represented attorneys may not recover their own attorney fees as sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 513.)

[2] Defendant Li filed an untimely opposition in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section

1005 (based upon the initial hearing date of 9/22/25). While the Court in its discretion has considered the untimely opposition in reaching its ruling, Defendant Li advised that any further failure to comply with applicable rules may result in adverse rulings.