Sanctions: Self-Represented Attorneys Winning CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions Are Not Entitled to Fee Recovery

California Supreme Court Follows Trope v. Katz in the Section 128.7 Context.

     Today, the California Supreme Court in Musaelian v. Warner, Case No. S156045 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Jan. 15, 2009) decided that Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 does not authorize sanctions in the form of an award of attorney’s fees to self-represented attorneys.

     In so holding, the state supreme court extended the reasoning of Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4^th 274 (1995) [construing Civ. Code, § 1717] to the section 128.7 context. It found that the use of the words “incurred” and “attorney’s fees”—nearly identical to the same language used in section 1717—implied an agency relationship inconsistent with self-representation. The court disapproved reasoning from intermediate appellate decisions reaching a different result, namely, Abandonato v. Coldren, 41 Cal.App.4^th 264, 269 (1995) [Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5] and Laborde v. Aranson, 92 Cal.App.4^th 459, 469 (2001) [Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7].

     Also, the state supreme court cited three federal decisions under rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as being consonant with the conclusion reached in Musaelian. See, e.g., Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc., 284 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2002); Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11^th Cir. 2001); DiPaolo v. Moran, 277 F.Supp.2d 528, 536 (E.D.Pa. 2003).