Defendants Frederick Watson, M.D. and Amir Schricker, M.D.’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7
May 29, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar
HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________
9:00 AM Line 3 23-CIV-04827 EMILY BRADLEY VS. FREDERICK WATSON, MD, ET AL
EMILY BRADLEY DONNA ETEMADI FREDERICK WATSON BARRY C. MARSH
Defendants Frederick Watson, M.D. and Amir Schricker, M.D.’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Frederick Watson, M.D.’s and Amir Schricker, M.D.’s motion for impose monetary sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, Donna Etemadi, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 for presenting to the Court a frivolous Motion for Leave to Pursue Punitive Damages Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 on October 13, 2025, is DENIED.
To the extent plaintiff’s brief in opposition requests similar fees and costs such request is DENIED as improper. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7, subd. (c).)
The Court again reminds plaintiff’s counsel that exhibits must be properly bookmarked. “Electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4); see also San Mateo County Superior Court, L.R. 3.3 [“Failure to bookmark exhibits to electronically filed documents may result in rejection of the party’s e-filing by the Clerk of the Court or in continuance of the hearing by the Court on the related motion.”].)
A.
Background
This is a wrongful death and medical negligence action regarding plaintiff’s late husband decedent Michael Bradley. The instant motion arises from the Court’s denial of Plaintiff Emily Bradley’s October 13, 2025 motion for leave to amend her complaint to allow a request for punitive damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 as to Defendants Sutter Bay Hospitals dba Mills Peninsula Medical Center and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (“Hospital Defendants”), Defendant Watson and Defendant Schricker (“Doctor Defendants”). This Court denied that motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to demonstrate substantial probability she will prevail on the punitive damages claim because the motion was not supported with competent admissible evidence.
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?”
B.
Legal Standard
As set forth in Weil & Brown, “[a]n attorney or unrepresented party who presents a pleading, motion or similar paper to the court makes an implied “certification” as to its legal and factual merit; and is subject to sanctions for violation of this certification. [CCP § 128.7].” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil
May 29, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 5 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2025 Update) ¶ 9:1135.) “The purpose of the statute is ‘to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.’ [Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 C4th 512, 514, 87 CR3d 475, 476].” (Ibid.)
“CCP § 128.7 also applies to a ‘written notice of motion’ and to ‘other similar papers.’ This clearly covers grounds set forth in a notice of motion and (presumably) matters contained in other documents attached to the motion; e.g., declarations and points and authorities. [CCP § 128.7(b)].” (Id. at ¶ 9:1154.) The scope of the certification affirms the paper is presented for a proper purpose, has legal merit and adequate evidentiary support and “[a] violation of any of them may give rise to sanctions.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7, subd. (b); Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 967, 976.)
C. Discussion
“The evidentiary burden to escape sanctions under CCP § 128.7 is ‘light.’ Counsel only need to have ‘made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and entertained a good faith belief in the merits of the claim’ and ‘need not amass even enough evidence to create a triable issue of fact’ as in summary judgment proceedings or show counsel could overcome a demurrer. [Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 CA5th 1110, 1126, 286 CR3d 876, 890] (Weil & Brown, supra, ¶ 9:1159.1.)
Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds plaintiff’s counsel attempted to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts and appears to have had a good faith belief in the merits of her claim after discovery was conducted. The Court cannot fault counsel’s desire to zealously advocate, however the Court notes that rules of procedure regarding sufficiency of evidence are integral to the determination of the merits of a claim. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED because the Court does not find the motion was primarily brought for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.