California litigants may face monetary sanctions when they continue pursuing claims that lack legal or factual support, particularly after being given an opportunity to withdraw or correct them.
A newly published California appellate decision illustrates the risk.
A $29,055 Sanctions Award
In Ari Law P.C. v. Autonation.com, Inc. (Aug. 26, 2026), the trial court had previously sustained a demurrer to several claims without leave to amend. The plaintiff nevertheless included those claims again in an amended complaint and declined requests to withdraw them.
The defendant served a sanctions motion under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7. The trial court ultimately imposed $29,055 in monetary sanctions against the plaintiff and its counsel. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
California’s Safe-Harbor Requirement
Sections 128.5 and 128.7 contain important procedural protections. Before filing a sanctions motion subject to the statutory safe-harbor procedure, the moving party generally must first serve the motion and give the opposing party an opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged conduct.
In Ari Law, the hearing date on the motion ultimately filed with the court differed from the date stated in the motion originally served. The Court of Appeal held that the difference did not invalidate the sanctions award because the motions were substantively the same and the statutory safe-harbor requirements were otherwise satisfied.
The Practical Lesson
A sanctions motion is not simply a mechanism for punishing a losing argument. But once a court has rejected a claim, or a party has been placed on notice that a pleading or litigation position may be improper, continuing to pursue that position can create additional exposure.
For both plaintiffs and defendants, California’s sanctions statutes make two things important: the merits of the challenged position and strict compliance with the procedural requirements for seeking sanctions.
Legal Authorities
- California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7
- Ari Law P.C. v. Autonation.com, Inc. (Aug. 26, 2026)
Related practice areas: Civil Litigation · Business and Commercial Litigation