CHEN vs WANG, et al.

25CV111737: CHEN vs WANG, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by May Chen (Plaintiff) CRS# 273120017003 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 06/05/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion for Sanctions filed by May Chen on 04/10/2026 is Denied.

The unopposed Motion of Plaintiff May Chen (“Plaintiff”) for Sanctions is DENIED.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL STANDARD

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. (CCP 128.7(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” (§ 128.7, subd. (b)(1)), pleadings with legal contentions that are frivolous (§ 128.7, subd. (b)(2)), or pleadings which lack evidentiary support (§ 128.7, subd. (b)(3).)

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Court determines that the certification was improper under the circumstances, it may impose an appropriate sanction. (CCP 128.7(c).)

The sanction for filing a pleading in violation of subdivision (b) may entail payment of “some or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.” (CCP 128.7(d).)

Strict compliance with the provisions of section 128.7 is required. (Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 CA 4th 535, 538 [“Strict compliance with the statute's notice provisions serves its remedial purpose and underscores the seriousness of a motion for sanctions”]; cf., Cromwell v. Cummings (1998) 65 CA 4th Supp. 10, 15 [“Application of the doctrine of substantial compliance would be inconsistent with the plain language of the ‘safe harbor’ provision [of section 128.7, subdivision (c)(1)], which has been strictly construed as an absolute prerequisite to an award of sanctions....”].) 25CV111737: CHEN vs WANG, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by May Chen (Plaintiff) CRS# 273120017003 in Department 520 DISCUSSION

“Under section 128.7, the papers to be served on the opposing party as notice of intent to file a section 128.7 sanctions motion must be the same papers that are ultimately filed with the court no less than 21 days later.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 827, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 588; see also Galleria Plus, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 538, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 803 [“Section 128.7's incorporation of section 1010 is compulsory, not permissive”].) (CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v. Gray (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 997, 1007.)

Here, although Plaintiff’s counsel attests to the fact that he served Defendants with “a notice of motion for sanctions,” presumably referring to the Notice of Motion in connection with this case, it certainly was not the exact same version because the former was served on January 13, 2026 while the Notice for the formal Motion is dated April 10, 2026. (Chen Decl., ¶ 23.)

Thus, given the fact that Plaintiff did not clearly or explicitly comply with CCP section 128.7’s mandatory procedural requirements, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on June 4, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 3, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.