Khaleeque

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM3 HON. Judge Erin Rowe Date: 08/27/26 Court Room Rules and Notices

# Case Name Tentative 1 Khaleeque – MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ROA 438) Probate 01304890 Executor Abid Bodla ("Executor") moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 for an order imposing monetary sanctions and striking "current outstanding motions/petitions filed by Dilshad Khaleeque. (ROA 438.)

Subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 provides in relevant part 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.”

Subdivision (b) provides that, for purposes of section 128.5:

(1) “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. The mere filing of a complaint without service thereof on an opposing party does not constitute “actions or tactics” for purposes of this section.

(2) “Frivolous” means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.

Subdivision (f)(1)(B) provides:

"If the alleged action or tactic is the making or opposing of a written motion or the filing and service of a complaint, cross- complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading that can be withdrawn or appropriately corrected, a notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court, unless 21 days after service of the motion or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged action or tactic is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected."

To obtain sanctions under sections 128.5 or 128.7, a party typically must follow a two-step procedure. (Transcon Financial, Inc. v. Reid & Hellyer, APC (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 547, 550.) It must first serve a motion for sanctions on the offending party. (Ibid.) Service of the motion triggers the 21-day safe harbor period during which the moving party may not file the motion. (Ibid.) "That is because the offending party may avoid

sanctions by withdrawing the challenged pleading during that 21-day period." (Ibid.) If the offending party does not withdraw or correct the challenged action, the moving party may file the sanctions motion. (Ibid.)

Here, Executor claims that sanctions are warranted due to Mr. Khaleeque's filing of frivolous pleadings, motions, and other papers. In particular, the moving papers focus on a document filed by Mr. Khaleeque titled, "Petition and Declaration of Dilshad Khaleeque for Return of Property, Pleading Title, Damages for Concealment, Elder Abuse, and Objection to Appointment of Administrator on Ex Parte Basis" (the "Purported Petition").

The Purported Petition was filed on 10/23/25 as an ex parte application. (ROA 387.) On 10/27/25, the court denied the ex parte application (i.e., the Purported Petition) and issued an order prohibiting Executor from selling any gold bars; the court did not deem the ex parte application a petition or otherwise set a hearing on the Purported Petition. (ROA 405.) Moreover, the court's records do not reflect that the Purported Petition was ever filed separately from the ex parte application.

The instant motion for sanctions was not served until 11/7/25. (ROA 439, Niven Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) At that time, Ms. Nivens emailed Mr. Khaleeque a copy of the instant motion and told him that she would file it unless he withdrew the Purported Petition. (Ibid.) Mr. Khaleeque responded by stating that he would not withdraw it. Neither Ms. Nivens nor Mr. Khaleeque acknowledge that the court's ruling of 10/27/25 already resolved the Purported Petition, thereby leaving nothing to be withdrawn.

Based on the foregoing, Executor did not comply with the safe harbor provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. Though Executor waited 21 days after service before filing the motion, the motion was served after the Purported Petition had already been denied. Thus, Mr. Khaleeque did not have the opportunity to withdraw the Purported Petition during the safe harbor period.

Courts strictly apply the safe harbor provision of Section 128.5(f). If a moving party fails to comply with it, the sanctions motion must be denied. (Zarate v. McDaniel (2023) 97 Cal. App. 5th 484, 489, citing CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v. Gray (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 997, 1007 and Transcon Financial, Inc. v. Reid & Hellyer, APC, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 551.)

Strict compliance with the safe harbor provision also requires the motion served before filing to include a hearing date, time, and location in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010. (Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538 ("Galleria") [dealing with the safe harbor

provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7].) In Galleria, the notice of motion stated that the motion would be heard "on AAA at BBB."(Ibid.) Similarly, in the instant case, the notice of motion stated "PENDING" in place of the date, time, and department in the caption, and the date, time, and location were left blank in the first paragraph of the notice.

The court notes that there are two unpublished opinions that agree with the holding in Galleria insofar as it held that serving a motion without a hearing date and time failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010. However, these unpublished opinions distinguish their cases in which the notice of motion was served with a date and time that was changed after the motion was filed, finding such notice complied with Section 1010. (See Kerkorian v. Mandekic, No. B252861, 2016 WL 1714213 and Whitehill v. Valente, No. A137613, 2014 WL 2758472.)

In this particular case, even if the date and time were included in the initial moving papers, it would not have been sufficient to comply with the safe harbor provision because it was impossible for Mr. Khaleeque to withdraw the offending pleading during the safe harbor period as discussed above.

Since Plaintiff did not strictly comply with the safe harbor provisions, the motion for sanctions must be denied.

Attorney Leslie L. Niven is ordered to file and serve notice of this ruling.

MOTION FOR WILL CONTEST AND TO REMOVE EXECUTOR (ROA 458)

Before the court is a motion filed by Dilshad Khaleeque on 12/4/25 entitled, "Motion Grounds for Will Contest and Removing Abid Bodla." (ROA 458.)

Mr. Khaleeque brought a similar motion on 4/15/24. (ROA 81.) On 1/8/25, the court deemed that motion (ROA 81) a Will Contest and ordered Mr. Khaleeque to serve it with a summons. (ROA 199.) On 3/11/25, the court continued the hearing on the motion deemed Will Contest and ordered Mr. Khaleeque to file and serve a summons by 6/6/25. (ROA 248.) Mr. Khaleeque did not file and serve a summons. On 6/11/25, Karman Dilshad and Jibran Dilshad filed a motion to dismiss the Will Contest (ROA 81) for failure to prosecute. (ROA 313.) On 12/10/25, the court granted the motion and dismissed the Will Contest. (ROA 478.)

The court will not deem the instant motion (ROA 458) a Will Contest. To contest the will, Mr. Khaleeque must follow the proper procedures set forth in Probate Code section 8000 et seq.