Moofly Prods., LLC v. Favila
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the CourtRothschild, P.J.
*995This appeal requires us to consider the procedures a trial court must follow in *770imposing sanctions for violations of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.1 That section, which establishes the rules for filing motions for reconsideration, provides that a court may impose sanctions for violations "as allowed by [s]ection 128.7." ( § 1008, subd. (d).) May a trial *996court sanction a party for violating section 1008 without allowing the party the benefit of a 21-day safe harbor to withdraw the offending motion, as is required by section 128.7, subdivision (c)? Our answer to that question is no.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Stephen Michael Ridder v. City of Springfield, Clark CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- Peacock Hill Ass'n v. Peacock Lagoon Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1972
- Moore v. ShawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Young v. RosenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Barnes v. Department of CorrectionsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Changsha Metro Group Co. v. XufengCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Del Biaggio v. BansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026
- Glickman v. KrolikowskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Marriage of Nott CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2020