Sanctions: Opposing Party’s Failure To Adequately Explain Bases For Sanction Motion And To Not Rebut All The Grounds In The Target Set-Aside Motion Resulted In Reversal

Reversal Was As A Matter Of Law, Based Primarily On Due Process Grounds.

               Wright v. Wright, Case No. B327043 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good reminder that a CCP § 128.7 filed motion must clearly articulate the grounds for sanctions and rebut the grounds in the targeted underlying motions with specificity.

               Although the procedural history is convoluted, ex-husband obtained a $101,855.65 Family Code section 6344 fee award after ex-wife lost a domestic violence restraining order proceeding, with ex-wife appealing that order.  After the appeal, she filed a motion to set aside the fee order, arguing she was trying to avoid an appeal to save resources and advancing that the motion could be entertained under CCP § 663, CCP § 473, and the Le Francois case.  Ex-husband served and later filed a CCP § 128.7 motion, mainly attacking the section 663 argument (arguing that the appeal made it untenable based on the appellate stay) but directing no discussion on whether the appellate stay prevented reconsideration of the set-aside motion under section 473 or Le Francois.  Although ex-wife opposed and there were reply papers filed by ex-husband, the lower court found the appellate stay applied which made the set-aside motion unreasonable, imposing $25,000 in sanctions against ex-wife and her counsel, even though not ruling on the section 473 or Le Francois grounds.

               The 2/1 DCA reversed as a matter of law.  After determining that the appeal was subject to de novo review in determining if section 128.7 statutory requirements had been followed, the panel held that ex-husband’s sanctions motion was confusing and failed to address whether the appellate stay impacted consideration of the section 473 and Le Francois grounds for the motion (with the appellate court determining that the stay did not prevent consideration of these arguments).  This is a reminder that a sanctions motion needs to cover the ambit of grounds raised in a targeted motion so that due process is satisfied and the sanctionable conduct is clearly delineated.

Scroll to Top