Defense Requested $8,000 In Fees As Sanctions, But Lower Court Awarded Less.
Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, in Maldonado v. Aluminum Precision Products, Case No. G061415 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2023) (unpublished), authored an opinion affirming a $5,676 attorney’s fees award from the defense having to oppose an improper CCP § 128.7 motion brought and then withdrawn by plaintiff employees who had parts of their Second Amended Complaint stricken. The sanctions were warranted because employees brought their 128.7 motion in relation to a motion to strike which was reasonable given the new allegations of their SAC. With respect to the amount of sanctions awarded, the lower court did reduce the $8,000 defense request given the overlap of work on its opposition to plaintiffs’ 128.7 motion and the defense’s own 128.7 motion. Justice “Beds” found that the record did not show that plaintiffs were being “punished” through the sanctions award, because the Legislature enacted 128.7 to prevent what happened in this case.