Ponce v. Wells Fargo, No. C080680 (D3 Mar. 13, 2018)
Code of Civil Procedure §128.7(b)(1) authorizes sanctions against a party or attorney who signs a document “presented primarily for an improper purpose[.]” In this case—some kind of confusing mortgage mod/foreclosure dispute on its fourth iteration—the court found that Plaintiffs brought their complaint for an improper purpose and entered terminating sanctions under § 128.7(b)(1).
Plaintiffs don’t seem to dispute that they might have been subjectively malicious. But they say they nonetheless can’t be sanctioned under § 128.7, because their lawsuit was based on an at least colorable theory. Relying mostly on federal authority interpreting Rule 11, the Court of Appeal agrees. The standard for “improper purpose” sanctions requires the signed paper to be without objective merit. If the paper—whether a motion, complaint, or otherwise—isn’t frivolous, it has not been brought for an “improper purpose,” as a matter of law.
Reversed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...
No comments:
Post a Comment