Lafferty v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Cal. CA3

Filed 1/26/22 Lafferty v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Cal. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

PATRICK LAFFERTY et al., C059562

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. CV030892)

v.

FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

This is the continuing saga of a Fleetwood motor home that has had a much longer journey through the legal system than it did when plaintiffs Patrick and Mary Lafferty drove it. In 2006, the Laffertys filed an action based on alleged motor home defects. We have previously heard appeals relating to the lender for the vehicle. (Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 545; Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (Mar. 26, 2015, C074843) [nonpub. opn.]; Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th

1

398.) This appeal concerns the Lafferty’s action against the manufacturer of the motor home, who they named as defendant “Fleetwood Motor Homes.”1 The problem for the Laffertys was that “Fleetwood Motor Homes” did not exist. Instead, there existed two separate legal entities: Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc. (Fleetwood of Indiana) and Fleetwood Motor Homes of California, Inc. (Fleetwood of California). The motor home in this case was manufactured by Fleetwood of Indiana – a fact that the attorney for Fleetwood of California repeatedly pointed out to the Laffertys. The Laffertys nonetheless maintained their action against Fleetwood of California, which necessitated a motion for summary judgment by Fleetwood of California. To recover the costs of preparing the motion for summary judgment, Fleetwood of California moved for sanctions under former Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 (former section 128.5). (Stats. 1994, ch. 1062, § 1, pp. 6395-6396.) The trial court granted monetary sanctions against the Laffertys and their attorney, Timothy D. Murphy. Only Patrick and Mary Lafferty appeal.2 On appeal, the Laffertys contend (1) former section 128.5 does not apply to this case because this action was filed after December 31, 1994, (2) former section 128.5 does not apply to “a failure to act” such as failure to dismiss a party, (3) Fleetwood of California “waived sanctions by agreeing to its own voluntary dismissal,” (4) the record does not support the trial court’s order for lack of any evidence that the sanctionable