It Acknowledges A Contrary First District Decision, But Agrees With The Result Reached By Other Sister Divisions Of The Second District.
In Max v. 8E6 Corp., Case No. B344025 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA agreed with its sister divisions in Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank, 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538 (2009) [Division 4] and J.N. v. Goldberg, 120 Cal.App.5th 544, 549-550 [Division 5] that a CCP § 128.7 unfiled sanctions motion must have a motion hearing date to be valid under CCP § 1010. It acknowledged that the First District diverged in Ari Law P.C. v. AutoNation.com, Inc., 122 Cal.App.5th 898, 910-911 (2026), but found that it would follow prior Second District precedents so that litigants knew how to proceed on this issue. Although acknowledging the difficulties of scheduling these motions for hearing under the LASC court’s motion reservation system (CRS), the statutory mandate was unambiguous, and Goldberg addressed the CRS issue directly. Also, LASC could address this by amending rules relating to the CRS.