Attorneys’ Safe Harbor/Technical § 128.7 Arguments Were Forfeited Because They Were Not Raised Before The Lower Court—Not To Mention Attorneys Could Have Withdrawn Their Stay Opposition.
Bad facts generally lead to losing appeals, and possibly more repercussions. Here, both the lower and appellate courts found that lead attorneys in two overlapping class actions had incredulous explanations for not knowing about the two actions, for opposing the defense stay motion filed in one of the actions, and for failing to properly supervise a contract attorney who denied using AI in his legal research although there were citations to non-existent cases, hallucinations, and non-existent support in certain real cases. Sanctions totaling $6,000 against the lead attorneys were affirmed on appeal in Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC, Case No. A174202 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2026) (published).
Plaintiffs’ law firm first filed a class action in Los Angeles County and later filed a very similar, overlapping employment class action in San Francisco County through a different arm of the same firm, naming Harbor Distributing, LLC and other defendants. The defense then moved to stay the later-filed San Francisco action. Plaintiffs’ attorneys opposed the motion using a contract attorney, who denied using AI but cited non-existent cases, hallucinated authority, and support that did not appear in actual cases. The record also demonstrated that the firm seemed unaware of the overlapping actions when opposing the defense’s stay motion, even though a joint CMC statement suggested the firm should have been aware of the two suits. In a tentative granting the stay motion, the lower court further issued an OSC for sanctions based on the attorneys’ conduct, which it viewed as very perplexing to put it mildly. Argument on the sanctions revealed some more details which were disturbing, leading the lower court to sanction the lead attorneys, $5,000 to defendant Harbor and $1,000 payable to the court clerk. Attorneys appealed.
The 1/2 DCA affirmed. In response to attorneys’ argument that the lower court deprived it of the safe harbor protections under CCP § 128.7, that challenge was rejected based on forfeiture grounds: they had failed to object to the trial court’s OSC issuance protocols, not to mention they could have withdrawn their stay opposition before the sanctions hearing to ameliorate the problem. That said, the merits of the sanctions order were sustained, too. The firm’s seeming ignorance of the two actions was not found persuasive. The lead attorneys had a responsibility to oversee and to check the work of the contract attorney, who denied using AI (which was viewed with skepticism), citing Noland, Alvarez, Sheerer, federal cases, and state bar/other commentary on responsibilities which flow from using AI.