Zeng v. Wang CA1/5
Filed 3/9/26 Zeng v. Wang CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
YING MAGGIE ZENG, A171959 Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Sonoma County ALBERT WANG, Super. Ct. No. SFL-089930)
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Albert Wang appeals from an order denying his motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.1 Wang sought sanctions based on the allegation that counsel for plaintiff Ying Maggie Zeng, respondent and real party in interest Johanna Beth Kleppe, forged a court order. We conclude that Wang has not established an abuse of discretion and affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Earlier Proceedings2 Wang and Zeng’s marriage was dissolved in 2013 in Orange County Superior Court. In 2021, Zeng sought a change of venue to Sonoma County,
1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 We summarize the prelude to this appeal based on our summary of
the facts in one of Wang’s earlier appeals. (Zeng v. Wang (Mar. 28, 2024 1
where she was living with the parties’ daughter. The Orange County Superior Court transferred the case and ordered Kleppe to cause the following documents to be sealed in the Sonoma County court: “ ‘State of California Health and Welfare Agency Department of Social Services Investigation Information, and accompanying documents attached as Exhibit L to Petitioner's July 2, 2021 Request for Order . . . [and] . . . Kaiser Permanente Medical Records attached as Exhibit B to Petitioner's July 2, 2021 Request for Order.’ ” The Orange County court directed Kleppe to “ ‘take care of sealing the documents that were stated on the record as soon as the case gets transferred to Sonoma County.’ ” Pending completion of the transfer, Zeng filed another proceeding in Sonoma County Superior Court to obtain a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Wang. (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) In March 2022, the trial court issued a two-year DVRO with custody and visitation orders. On October 21, 2022, roughly 10 months after the transfer to Sonoma County was complete, the Sonoma County trial court entered an order sealing records identified in and pursuant to the Orange County order. Ten days later, Wang sought monetary sanctions against Kleppe under section 177.5, claiming that Kleppe had not made good faith efforts to comply with the Orange County order. Among other things, he complained that Kleppe sought the sealing order late, only asked the trial court to seal two exhibits, and filed additional confidential records without sealing them. Kleppe filed a responsive declaration on November 29, 2022, explaining her delay in complying with the Orange County order. She further asserted
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)