Sanctions Properly Imposed When Raised By Opposing Side In Responsive Papers To Frivolous Motion Under 128.5(c), And Safe Harbor Provision Was Inapplicable.
In RH Properties v. McBeth, Case No. B334051 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2025) (unpublished), unique circumstances were involved: plaintiff obtained appointment of a property receiver, with the other side filing a motion for CCP § 128.7 sanctions of over $1 million against plaintiff and its attorney for obtaining a frivolous receivership appointment. Plaintiff, in its opposition to the sanctions motion, requested the lower court to impose sanctions against defendant and her attorney under CCP § 128.5(c) for bringing their own frivolous sanctions motion. Eventually, a lower court agreed that the defendant’s sanctions motion was frivolous, and that plaintiff was entitled to $14,935, jointly and severally against defendant and her attorney, payable to plaintiff—sanctions awarded under 128.5(c).
The 2/1 DCA affirmed, rejecting defendant’s and her attorney’s challenge to the sanctions order. First, the panel determined that the 21-day safe harbor provision of section 128.5 was inapplicable because there was no offensive paper to be withdrawn given denial of defendant’s frivolous sanction motion and imposition of sanctions after that denial, citing Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xufeng, 57 Cal.App.5th 1, 17 (2020). Second, defendant and her attorney had plenty of time to withdraw their sanctions motion based on the timing of the hearing at which defendant’s sanction motion was denied. Third, although noting a contradiction between section 128.5(c) [allowing an opposing party to obtain sanctions where it raised its sanctions request in opposition papers] and section 125(f) [requirement of a separate motion for a sanctions request], plaintiff reasonably relied on section 125.8(c) in requesting sanctions in its opposition.