Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiffs J.N. (through a guardian ad litem), Jordan Nadley, and Jakob Nadley sued Jeffrey Goldberg for financial elder abuse and intentional misrepresentation. Goldberg sought sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, arguing the complaint was factually and legally frivolous.
Section 128.7 requires that a sanctions motion be served on the opposing party, triggering a 21-day “safe harbor” period during which the offending party may withdraw or correct the challenged pleading. Under section 1010, the notice of motion must state when the motion will be heard. But the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s mandatory Court Reservation System (CRS) requires motions to be filed within three business days of reserving a hearing date — making it impossible to secure a hearing date at the time of service and still honor the 21-day safe harbor.
Goldberg served his notice of motion on October 25, 2024, leaving the hearing date blank. After the safe harbor period expired, he reserved a hearing date and filed a second set of papers on November 20, 2024. The trial court found the complaint frivolous, awarded $19,285 in sanctions, and dismissed the case, reasoning that the CRS made strict compliance with notice requirements impossible and that the prior case law requiring a hearing date was “outdated.”
The Court’s Holding
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that sections 128.7 and 1010 unambiguously require a notice of motion to state when the motion will be heard. Under Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009), omitting this information renders the notice “fatally defective,” and the 21-day safe harbor period never begins.
The court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that Galleria Plus was “outdated” by the advent of electronic filing. The CRS may make compliance inconvenient, the court acknowledged, but it does not override the Legislature’s clear statutory mandate. A trial court cannot adopt local rules or procedures that conflict with state statutes. Goldberg could have filed an ex parte motion to obtain a hearing date beyond the CRS’s three-day filing window, and the court noted that other counties (Orange and San Bernardino) have already built exemptions into their e-filing systems for sanctions motions.
The court also distinguished Changsha Metro Group Co. v. Xufeng (2020), which excused noncompliance where competing statutory provisions created a true impossibility. Here, the conflict was between a statute and a local court’s electronic system — not between two legislative mandates — and a workaround existed.
Key Takeaways
- A section 128.7 sanctions motion must include a hearing date in the notice of motion. Omitting it is a fatal defect that prevents the 21-day safe harbor from ever starting, regardless of the merits of the sanctions request.
- The LA County Superior Court’s Court Reservation System creates a practical conflict with the safe harbor requirement, but this does not excuse noncompliance. Litigants can file an ex parte motion to obtain a hearing date beyond the CRS’s three-day filing window.
- Substantial compliance and harmless error doctrines do not apply to section 128.7’s safe harbor provisions. Courts require strict compliance with the statute’s notice and timing rules.
- Other counties (Orange and San Bernardino) have already modified their e-filing systems to exempt sanctions motions from timing restrictions, and the court suggested LA County do the same.
- Serving a second set of papers with a hearing date on the same day as filing does not cure the defect, because no safe harbor period accompanies it.
Why It Matters
This opinion is essential reading for any litigator who practices in LA County Superior Court and has faced the frustrating tension between the CRS and section 128.7’s safe harbor requirements. The workaround is clear: file an ex parte application to set a hearing date more than 21 days out before serving the sanctions notice. Practitioners who skip this step risk having their sanctions motions thrown out — no matter how frivolous the opposing pleading may be.
The decision also sends a signal to the LA County Superior Court to update its CRS rules, as Orange and San Bernardino counties have already done. Until that happens, the burden falls on the moving party to navigate the procedural gap.