Marriage of Arroyo and Arroyo Roldan CA4/1

Filed 12/6/24 Marriage of Arroyo and Arroyo Roldan CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of PATRICIA ARROYO and EDGARDO ARROYO ROLDAN. D083729 PATRICIA ARROYO,

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FL002390S) v.

EDGARDO ARROYO ROLDAN,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sherry M. Thompson-Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. Edgardo Arroyo Roldan, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Neumann Family Law and Sara R. Neumann as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent. Edgardo Arroyo Roldan and Patricia Arroyo divorced. After years of postjudgment litigation, the trial court sanctioned Edgardo for discovery noncompliance under Family Code section 271 by ordering him to pay

attorney fees totaling $91,495. Edgardo appeals, arguing (1) he was not properly served with notice of the request for section 271 sanctions and (2) the court abused its discretion because it was “impossible to know” if the amounts requested “could be tethered to actual legal fees and costs.” Edgardo, however, has not provided us with a sufficient record to meaningfully review his claims. Edgardo also contends the court abused its discretion by awarding sanctions for pro bono attorney fees and costs, but to the extent this claim differs from his tethering argument, he offers no relevant authority that would persuade us to exclude pro bono fees and costs from section 271. Therefore, we affirm. I. Section 271 allows the court to award attorney fees and costs as a sanction based “on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.” (§ 271(a).) Such an award “shall be imposed only after notice . . . to the party against whom the sanction is proposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.” (§ 271(b).) Due process requires the notice to specify the (1) authority relied on and (2) grounds and conduct for which the sanctions are sought. (Parker v. Harbert (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1178.) We review an award of attorney fees under section 271 for abuse of discretion and review any findings of fact made in connection with the award for substantial evidence. (Parker, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1177.)