Los Angeles Superior Court Vacates $80,400 Anti-SLAPP Sanctions Award Against Attorney

Decker Law Successfully Removes Attorney from Sanctions Order Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b)

Decker Law obtained a significant trial court victory by securing an order vacating an $80,400 sanctions award against an attorney arising from an anti-SLAPP proceeding in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The court granted a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), finding that the attorney's failure to oppose the sanctions motion resulted from excusable mistake, surprise, and neglect. As a result, the court struck the attorney's name from the sanctions order and vacated the award as to him.

Background of the Case

The underlying litigation involved an anti-SLAPP motion filed on behalf of defendants in a business dispute.

After the anti-SLAPP motion was denied, the plaintiff sought attorney's fees and sanctions, arguing that the motion was frivolous. The court ultimately awarded $80,400 in attorney's fees and imposed liability not only on the defendants but also on two attorneys associated with the representation.

One of those attorneys had limited involvement in the matter and believed he was no longer considered counsel of record. After learning that sanctions had been imposed against him personally, he retained Decker Law to seek relief from the order.

The Legal Issue

The motion presented an important question under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b):

Should an attorney be relieved from a sanctions order when the attorney reasonably believed the sanctions motion was not directed at him and did not receive critical notice regarding later proceedings that substantially increased the sanctions request?

The court answered that question yes.

The Court’s Decision

The Court Found Excusable Surprise and Neglect

The court carefully reviewed the circumstances surrounding the sanctions proceedings.

The evidence showed that the attorney had not participated in drafting the anti-SLAPP motion that was later deemed frivolous, had not participated in the related appeal, and had not billed time in the litigation other than during an early mediation before the lawsuit was filed.

The attorney also established that he had repeatedly been informed he was not listed as counsel of record in the court's system and had signed substitution forms in an effort to formally conclude his involvement in the case.

Most significantly, the court found that the attorney had not been specifically identified in the notice of motion as a person against whom sanctions were being sought and had not received later filings that substantially affected the sanctions request.

Under those circumstances, the court concluded that his failure to oppose the sanctions motion was excusable.

Four Circumstances Justified Relief

The court identified four key factors supporting relief:

1. The attorney's lack of involvement in the anti-SLAPP motion and appeal;

2. The plaintiff's failure to specifically identify him in the sanctions notice;

3. The failure to serve him with later briefing related to the fee request; and

4. His reasonable belief that he was no longer considered counsel of record.

Based on those findings, the court granted relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

The Court Struck the Attorney From the Sanctions Order

The court ordered that the attorney's name be removed from the prior sanctions order and vacated the sanctions award as to him. The court further denied the opposing party's request for additional fees incurred in opposing the motion because the motion itself was meritorious.

Why This Decision Matters

Sanctions orders entered against attorneys can have serious professional and financial consequences.

This case demonstrates that California courts retain authority to provide relief when sanctions are imposed under circumstances involving excusable mistake, surprise, or neglect. Courts will carefully examine whether adequate notice was provided and whether the attorney had a meaningful opportunity to respond before being subjected to personal liability.

The decision also highlights the importance of procedural fairness in sanctions proceedings. Even when sanctions may be available under California law, courts expect parties seeking sanctions to provide clear notice and proper service.

Contact Decker Law

Decker Law represents attorneys, businesses, and individuals in sanctions proceedings, anti-SLAPP litigation, post-judgment motions, writ proceedings, and appeals throughout California. If sanctions have been imposed against you or your attorney, contact Decker Law to discuss available options for relief.