2018-00232085-CU-PA

Anna Tagintseva vs. Nataliya Basarab

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions (Christopher Henderson-Pughsley)

Filed By: Hyatt, Allison S.

Defendant Christopher Henderson-Pughsley’s unopposed motion for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 is denied.

The Court received but did not consider Plaintiff’s opposition served on October 22, 2018, only seven Court days before the hearing.

On August 6, 2018, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash service and summons. The Court essentially found that self-represented Plaintiff Anna Tagintseva’s proof of service stating that Defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint was not true. The Court found that the declarations submitted in connection with the opposition to the motion to quash were not credible.

Defendant now seeks $1,500 in sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7. Here, despite the above, the motion must be denied for failure to comply with CCP § 128.7’s safe harbor provision. Pursuant to subdivision (f)(B) of the statute, “I[f] the alleged action or tactic is the making or opposing of a written motion or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading that can be withdrawn or appropriately corrected, a notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court, unless 21 days after service of the motion or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged action or tactic is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.”

That the subject statute contains a safe harbor provision [and that it must be complied with] is beyond dispute. As noted in the recent case of Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Southern SARMSs, Inc., (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 117, 129, the Court notes: “In urgency legislation enacted August 7, 2017 (Stats. 2017, ch. 169, § 1), the Legislature amended section 128.5 “to clarify the previous legislative intent.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 984 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 20, 2017, p. 1, italics omitted.) Specifically as it relates to the issue presented by this appeal, rather than simply cross-referencing subdivision (c) of section 128.7, as it formerly had, section 128.5, subdivision (f), was amended to import (with minor language modifications) the conditions and procedures contained in that provision, including in subdivision (f)(1)(B) a 21-day safe harbor provision “[i]f the alleged action or tactic is the making or opposing of a written motion or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading that can be withdrawn or appropriately corrected…. .”

Defendant complains that Plaintiff filed a false proof of service which required him to file a motion to quash. However, the purpose of CCP § 128.7’s safe harbor provision is to allow the party subject to sanctions to correct or withdraw the challenged action or tactic. But here, Defendant successfully challenged the proof of service by way of its earlier motion to quash and service was quashed. By the time the instant motion was served, the challenged action or tactic (the proof of service) was dealt with by the previous motion to quash and Plaintiff was never provided any opportunity under CCP
§ 128.7 to remedy or withdraw the proof of service prior to the hearing on the motion to quash. There was nothing that Plaintiff could correct by the time the CCP § 128.7 motion was filed. The motion therefore must be denied.

The Court also notes that while the proof of service indicates that the instant motion was served at least 21 days before the motion was filed, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration does not indicate that counsel communicated with Plaintiff and requested that she take any action which could avoid the instant motion being filed. This is an

additional reason to deny the motion even if the above circumstances were not present.

The motion is denied.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required

Item 15 2018-00232085-CU-PA

Anna Tagintseva vs. Nataliya Basarab

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions (Gregory Jacobi)

Filed By: Hyatt, Allison S.

Defendant Gregory Jacobi’s unopposed motion for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 is denied.

This motion is identical to Defendant Christopher Henderson-Pughsley’s motion for sanctions which was the subject of the Court’s ruling in item 14. That ruling is incorporated herein and this motion is denied for the same reasons.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Item 16 2018-00232085-CU-PA

Anna Tagintseva vs. Nataliya Basarab

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions (Patricia Neureuther)

Filed By: Hyatt, Allison S.

Defendant Patricia Neureuther’s unopposed motion for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 is denied.

This motion is identical to Defendant Christopher Henderson-Pughsley’s motion for sanctions which was the subject of the Court’s ruling in item 14. That ruling is incorporated herein and this motion is denied for the same reasons.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Item 17 2018-00232085-CU-PA

Anna Tagintseva vs. Nataliya Basarab

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions (Geico Indemnity Co.)

Filed By: Hyatt, Allison S.

Defendant Geico Indemnity Co.’s unopposed motion for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 is denied.

This motion is identical to Defendant Christopher Henderson-Pughsley’s motion for sanctions which was the subject of the Court’s ruling in item 14. That ruling is incorporated herein and this motion is denied for the same reasons.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Item 18 2018-00232085-CU-PA

Anna Tagintseva vs. Nataliya Basarab

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions (Nataliya Basarab)

Filed By: Hyatt, Allison S.

Defendant Nataliya Basarab’s unopposed motion for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 is denied.

This motion is identical to Defendant Christopher Henderson-Pughsley’s motion for sanctions which was the subject of the Court’s ruling in item 14. That ruling is incorporated herein and this motion is denied for the same reasons.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.