Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bonifacio Salgado sued his former employer, Fred Palla Farms, Inc., alleging wrongful termination, harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act after more than 20 years of employment ending November 14, 2022. During discovery, Palla Farms filed multiple motions to compel that the trial court granted on January 31 and May 28, 2024, all unopposed, and ordered Salgado and his counsel to pay monetary sanctions. After Salgado failed to provide further responses and failed to pay $1,930 in sanctions, Palla Farms moved for terminating sanctions. On December 6, 2024, the Kern County Superior Court granted the motion, struck Salgado's first amended complaint, and entered judgment for Palla Farms in the form of a dismissal with prejudice. Palla Farms served and filed a notice of entry of judgment on December 16, 2024, and Salgado did not appeal the judgment.
Salgado tendered a motion for relief from the terminating sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) for filing on June 16, 2025, but it was rejected for a clerical caption error; the corrected motion was filed June 18, 2025. The trial court heard the motion on July 29, 2025, and denied it, and the parties agree the denial rested on the ground that the motion was untimely under section 473(b). Salgado appealed the post-judgment order. After the appeal was fully briefed, Palla Farms moved for appellate sanctions, arguing the appeal was frivolous and that Salgado's reply brief cited a fabricated case.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Both the discretionary and mandatory relief provisions of section 473(b) carry a six-month limitations period—182 days or six calendar months, whichever is longer—and the court has no authority to excuse noncompliance. The judgment of dismissal was entered December 6, 2024, not December 16, 2024 as Salgado contended; his motion, first submitted June 16, 2025, was therefore more than 182 days and over six calendar months late and untimely. The court rejected his argument that the period runs from the notice of entry of judgment, finding no support in the statute's text. His due process challenge to the underlying dismissal was untimely and inapposite because this appeal arose from the post-judgment order, and his notice of appeal came well after the jurisdictional deadline for appealing the judgment itself.
The court also granted Palla Farms's sanctions motion. It held the appeal frivolous under the objective prong of In re Marriage of Flaherty because any reasonable attorney would agree it was wholly without merit: counsel's challenge rested on the demonstrably false premise that judgment was entered December 16, 2024, and he obfuscated the distinction between entry of judgment and notice of entry. The reply brief also cited a nonexistent case, R&S Industries, Inc. v. Caton, which counsel acknowledged was fabricated and which potentially represented an artificial-intelligence hallucination—an unreasonable violation of rule 8.204(a)(1)(B). The court imposed $5,000 in sanctions on counsel alone, Kingsley Opia-Enwemuche and Twin-Oaks Attorneys, payable to Palla Farms, awarded appellate costs to Palla Farms, and directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the State Bar.
Key Takeaways
- A section 473(b) motion for relief from a judgment or dismissal must be filed within six months or 182 days, whichever is longer, from entry of the judgment or dismissal; the limit is jurisdictional and cannot be excused.
- The limitations period runs from entry of judgment, not from service of a notice of entry of judgment.
- An appeal from denial of an untimely section 473(b) motion is objectively frivolous under Flaherty when any reasonable attorney would agree it is wholly without merit.
- Citing a fabricated case in an appellate brief violates rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) and is sanctionable under rule 8.276(a)(4).
- Sanctions for a frivolous appeal and fabricated citations may be imposed on counsel alone where counsel's conduct necessitated the appeal and bears primary responsibility for the violations.
Why It Matters
This unpublished opinion reinforces the jurisdictional six-month limit on section 473(b) relief and confirms it runs from entry of judgment, not notice of entry. It also illustrates the consequences for counsel who pursue frivolous appeals and cite nonexistent authority—here, a citation counsel admitted was fabricated and that potentially stemmed from an artificial-intelligence hallucination. Imposing the $5,000 sanction on counsel alone and referring the matter to the State Bar underscores how seriously California courts treat fabricated citations in appellate briefs.