Sanctions: Where Ex-Attorneys Failed To Dismiss A Case As Promised, Sanctions Were Appropriate Where The Case Was Not Dismissed During The Safe Harbor Period Or Even By The Date Of The Sanctions Hearing

$10,450 In Sanctions Under CCP Section 128.7 Were Imposed, Less Than The $37,000-Plus Request.

Ghermezian v. Ruiz, Case No. B345272 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 24, 2026) (unpublished) involved a dispute between ex-attorneys against the ex-client and the subsequent attorneys over settlement fund dispersal after a settlement was obtained by the subsequent attorneys.  As generally is the case, the dispute was nasty.  Ex-attorneys accepted a 998 offer to dismiss the case in return for some money, but they never dismissed the case which had allegations against one of the new attorneys who had no control over the settlement funds.  Some of the subsequent attorneys brought a CCP section 128.7 sanctions motion against ex-attorneys based on the meritless nature of ex-attorneys’ pleadings after giving a safe harbor notice and scheduling the motion timely (although the court clerk made a mistake, but there was no prejudice from it and the sanctions motion was continued anyway).  The lower court awarded the moving parties $10,450 in sanctions, reduced from the request of over $37,000.  Although numerous raised challenges which were rejected on appeal, the one catching our attention was that ex-attorneys were not parties to the case because they agreed to dismiss it under the accepted 998 offer.  The lower and appellate court dispatched this argument by observing that ex-attorneys were still in the case, because they never effectuated a dismissal during the safe harbor period or even 2 months later at the sanctions hearing.  Sanctions were justified after looking at the merits of ex-attorneys’ claims. 

Scroll to Top