4/1 DCA Disagreed With Treatise Commentary And An Older, Antiquated Supreme Court Case To The Contrary.
In Amezcua v. Superior Court, Case No. D087216 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 24, 2026) (published), the appellate court reversed a $25,000 sanctions award under CCP § 473(a) to the extent it conditioned payment of attorney’s fees as a condition of allowing a plaintiff leave to amend a complaint. Its holding was succinct: “Section 473, subdivision (a), does not authorize fee-shifting orders as a means to address improper litigation tactics in the context of amendments and challenges to the pleadings.” In doing so, it bucked against treatise commentary saying fees were allowable and an older supreme court decision which was overruled based on statutory changes. The appellate court did not believe “costs” under the subdivision also included attorney’s fees based on CCP § 1021.