1429 Grant Ave, LLC v. Linton CA1/1

Filed 10/14/24 1429 Grant Ave, LLC v. Linton CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

1429 GRANT AVE, LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168906 v. ANDREW LINTON, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CGC-17-557123) Defendant and Appellant; ANTHONY R. FLORES, Objector and Appellant.

Andrew Linton and his attorney, Anthony R. Flores (collectively, appellants), appeal from sanctions orders imposed after they filed a motion seeking to set aside 1429 Grant Ave, LLC’s (1429 Grant Ave) voluntary dismissal of its ejectment action against Linton. Appellants contend the trial court failed to make sufficiently specific findings in the sanctions orders. Because appellants have forfeited their appellate arguments, we affirm. DISCUSSION We need not recite the facts and procedural history of this case in detail. The parties are familiar with the facts and history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We thus resolve the case before us with an abbreviated

1

written opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1262.) 1429 Grant Ave sued Linton for ejectment from its property. The parties eventually agreed to a settlement, whereby 1429 Grant Ave would pay Linton $250,000 if he moved out by a certain date. Thereafter, Linton unsuccessfully moved two separate times to enforce the settlement agreement, with the trial court concluding he was not entitled to compensation because he failed to timely deliver the premises to 1429 Grant Ave. 1429 Grant Ave ultimately dismissed its complaint without prejudice, but the litigation did not end because Linton renewed his motion to enforce the settlement, which the court denied, and then moved to set aside the dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 473. The court denied the motion, and 1429 Grant Ave filed two motions for sanctions—one brought under section 128.5 and the other brought under section 128.7—based on the section 473 motion. The court granted both motions and ordered Linton and Flores to pay sanctions to 1429 Grant Ave. Appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that the trial court’s orders granting 1429 Grant Ave’s motions for sanctions were insufficiently detailed to satisfy sections 128.5, subdivision (c), and 128.7, subdivision (e).2