SEKHON VS. HUTT

CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0211420 Tentative Ruling on Special Motion to Strike: Defendant Christopher Hutt moves to strike the Complaint pursuant to CCP § 425.16. The Court cannot reach the merits of the Motion, because it was not timely noticed for today’s hearing date. The Proof of Service by mail was filed August 14, 2026. It states the Motion was mailed to Plaintiff on August 13, 2026, which is untimely by 4 days. See CCP § 1005(b), which requires 16 court days’ notice, plus 5 calendar days for mailing. Absent a request for a continuance to timely notice the Motion, the Court intends to deny it without prejudice.

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Sanctions: Defendant Christopher Hutt moves for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7. The Court cannot reach the merits of the Motion, because it was not timely noticed for today’s hearing date. The Proof of Service by mail was filed August 14, 2026. It states the Motion was mailed to Plaintiff on August 13, 2026, which is untimely by 4 days. See CCP § 1005(b), which requires 16 court days’ notice, plus 5 calendar days for mailing.

Additionally, a motion made pursuant to CCP § 128.7 requires an additional 21 calendar days’ notice prior to filing. This “safe harbor” provision, set forth in CCP § 128.7(c)(1) provides in relevant part: “A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.”

There is no evidence in the record that Defendant complied with this requirement prior to filing. Therefore the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. No proposed order was submitted as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Defendant shall submit the proposed order.

SP CONTRACTING, INC. VS. HOUSTON, ET AL.