Legal Opinion
Malovec v. Hamrell
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 1, 1999No. B111152PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRIGNON, Acting P. J.
J.After granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court on its own motion ordered plaintiff’s attorney to show cause why sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 1 should not be imposed for the filing and pursuit of the complaint. Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the complaint. After a hearing, the trial court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff’s attorney in favor of defendant and the county. We conclude: (1) a trial court may not initiate section 128.7 sanctions against a plaintiff for filing…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stephen Michael Ridder v. City of Springfield, Clark CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- Arnett v. Dal CieloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Barber v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- M & R PROPERTIES v. ThomsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Martorana v. Marlin & SaltzmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Barnes v. Department of CorrectionsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Li v. Majestic Industrial Hills LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Optimal Markets, Inc. v. SalantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Reese v. GuyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.