Legal Opinion

Moofly Prods., LLC v. Favila

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided June 1, 2018No. B282084PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Stephen Michael Ridder v. City of Springfield, Clark CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
  2. Peacock Hill Ass'n v. Peacock Lagoon Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Moore v. ShawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Young v. RosenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  5. Barnes v. Department of CorrectionsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Changsha Metro Group Co. v. XufengCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  2. Del Biaggio v. BansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026
  3. Glickman v. KrolikowskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
  4. Marriage of Nott CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API