Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Appellant David D. Kim & Associates appeals from an order directing payment of monetary sanctions to respondent Hanmi Bank pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Among other arguments, appellant contends that respondent failed to provide required notice of its motion for sanctions. We agree—respondent’s notice of its motion for sanctions did not meet the requirements of sections 128.7, subdivision (c)(1) and 1010. The award of sanctions therefore must be reversed. We need not and do not address appellant’s other arguments.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In March…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bohn v. BohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Nakamura v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Barnes v. Department of CorrectionsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Jones v. Catholic Healthcare WestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Day v. CollingwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Augusta v. Keehn & AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- CPF Vaseo Assocs., LLC v. Gray, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Ari Law v. Autonation.comCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026
- Betancourt v. Bella Vista Estates CA5California Court of Appeal · 2015
- CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.