Code Details

Code of Civil Procedure – CCP
PART 1. OF COURTS OF JUSTICE [35 – 286] ( Part 1 repealed and added by Code Amendments 1880, Ch. 35. )
TITLE 1. ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION [35 – 155] ( Title 1 repealed and added by Code Amendments 1880, Ch. 35. )
CHAPTER 6. General Provisions Respecting Courts of Justice [124 – 153] ( Heading of Chapter 6 renumbered from Chapter 7 by Stats. 1951, Ch. 1737. )

ARTICLE 2. Incidental Powers and Duties of Courts [128 – 130] ( Article 2 added by Code Amendments 1880, Ch. 35. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise provided by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.

(b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:

(1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(c) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In determining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence.

(1) A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.

(2) On its own motion, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b), unless, within 21 days of service of the order to show cause, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected.

(d) A sanction imposed for violation of subdivision (b) shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in paragraphs (1) and (2), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

(1) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).

(2) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court’s motion unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(e) When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this section and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.

(f) In addition to any award pursuant to this section for conduct described in subdivision (b), the court may assess punitive damages against the plaintiff upon a determination by the court that the plaintiff’s action was an action maintained by a person convicted of a felony against the person’s victim, or the victim’s heirs, relatives, estate, or personal representative, for injuries arising from the acts for which the person was convicted of a felony, and that the plaintiff is guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice in maintaining the action.

(g) This section shall not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions.

(h) A motion for sanctions brought by a party or a party’s attorney primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, shall itself be subject to a motion for sanctions. It is the intent of the Legislature that courts shall vigorously use its sanctions authority to deter that improper conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.

(i) This section shall apply to a complaint or petition filed on or after January 1, 1995, and any other pleading, written notice of motion, or other similar paper filed in that matter.

(Amended by Stats. 2005, Ch. 706, Sec. 9. Effective January 1, 2006.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 Summary

California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 is a crucial statute designed to deter frivolous litigation and promote ethical conduct in the legal profession. It mandates that when an attorney or an unrepresented party presents any legal document to the court—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or advocating—they are certifying that, to the best of their knowledge and after a reasonable inquiry, the document is:
1. Not filed for an improper purpose (like harassment or delay).
2. Legally sound or represents a non-frivolous argument for changing existing law.
3. Supported by evidence or likely to be supported after further investigation.
4. Based on evidence for denials of factual contentions or a reasonable lack of information.

If a court finds that these conditions have been violated, it can impose sanctions on the responsible attorney, law firm, or party. The statute includes a “safe harbor” provision, allowing the challenged party 21 days after being served with a sanctions motion to withdraw or correct the problematic filing before the motion can be officially filed with the court. Sanctions are intended to deter future misconduct and can include non-monetary directives, monetary penalties, or payment of the opposing party’s attorney’s fees incurred due to the violation. Notably, monetary sanctions typically cannot be imposed against a represented party for making an unwarranted legal argument.

Purpose of Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7

The legislative purpose behind Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 is to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by curbing abusive and frivolous litigation practices. Before this statute, California courts faced issues with attorneys and parties filing lawsuits or legal documents without adequate factual or legal basis, often with the intent to harass, delay proceedings, or drive up litigation costs.

CCP § 128.7 addresses these problems by placing a clear obligation on those presenting legal papers to ensure their filings are well-founded in law and fact. It serves as a powerful deterrent against improper conduct, encouraging thorough pre-filing investigation and responsible advocacy. By allowing courts to impose sanctions, the statute aims to reduce court congestion caused by baseless claims, promote efficiency, and protect litigants from unnecessary expenses and protracted disputes. It embodies the principle that legal proceedings should be conducted in good faith, based on genuine disputes, and supported by reasonable inquiry.

Real-World Example of Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7

Imagine a scenario in a personal injury case: John Doe files a lawsuit against a grocery store, claiming he slipped and fell on a wet floor, suffering a severe back injury. His attorney, without conducting a thorough investigation, includes allegations in the complaint that the store employees knew about the spill for hours and intentionally failed to clean it up, despite having no evidence to support these claims. The complaint also seeks an exorbitant amount for pain and suffering, far exceeding typical awards for similar injuries, without strong medical documentation.

The grocery store’s defense attorney reviews the complaint and finds the claims of intentional neglect and the demand for damages to be entirely without evidentiary support and made for an improper purpose (e.g., to pressure a quick settlement regardless of merit). The defense attorney drafts a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7, detailing the specific unsupported allegations and the lack of reasonable inquiry by John Doe’s attorney.

The defense attorney serves this sanctions motion on John Doe’s attorney but does not file it with the court. This triggers the 21-day “safe harbor” period. During this time, John Doe’s attorney has the opportunity to review the challenged claims. If, after realizing the claims are indeed baseless, John Doe’s attorney withdraws or amends the complaint to remove the unsupported allegations, the defense attorney cannot then file the motion for sanctions.

However, if John Doe’s attorney fails to withdraw or correct the problematic claims within 21 days, the defense attorney can then file the motion for sanctions with the court. If the court agrees that the initial filings violated CCP § 128.7(b) by lacking evidentiary support and being filed for an improper purpose, it could impose sanctions. These sanctions might include ordering John Doe’s attorney (and potentially his law firm) to pay the grocery store’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in responding to the frivolous claims and preparing the sanctions motion, or issuing a non-monetary directive to deter similar conduct in the future. This demonstrates how the statute encourages self-correction and provides a mechanism to penalize persistent frivolous conduct.

Related Statutes

While Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 is a primary statute for sanctions, several other California statutes and rules relate to the broader concept of deterring improper litigation:

• Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5: This section allows for sanctions for “bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay” in judicial proceedings. While CCP § 128.7 largely superseded § 128.5 for complaints and other filings made on or after January 1, 1995, § 128.5 still applies to certain contexts, such as certain pre-1995 filings and certain actions or tactics that do not fall under the specific “paper” requirements of § 128.7, especially discovery-related conduct, which § 128.7(g) explicitly excludes.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 907: This statute allows a reviewing court to impose penalties, including attorney’s fees or damages, if an appeal is found to be frivolous or taken solely for delay.
• Business and Professions Code § 6068(c): This section of the State Bar Act outlines an attorney’s duty to “counsel or maintain such actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her to be just.” It establishes an ethical duty that complements the procedural requirements of CCP § 128.7.
• California Rules of Court, Rule 2.30: This rule sets forth general procedural requirements for monetary sanctions ordered by the court, including the need for a statement of the conduct justifying the sanction.

## Case Law Interpreting Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7

• Banks v. Hathaway, Inc., 57 Cal.App.4th 942 (1997) – This case is significant for its interpretation of the “safe harbor” provision of CCP § 128.7, emphasizing that the 21-day period for correction or withdrawal is mandatory and a prerequisite to filing a sanctions motion.
• Galland v. O’Connell, 178 Cal.App.4th 574 (2009) – This case clarifies the relationship between CCP § 128.7 and CCP § 128.5, explaining that for conduct involving pleadings and other covered papers after 1994, § 128.7 is the exclusive remedy, and § 128.5 applies to other types of bad-faith tactics.
• Gupta v. Stanford University, 23 Cal.App.5th 1172 (2018) – This decision provides guidance on what constitutes a “frivolous” filing under CCP § 128.7, detailing the standards courts apply when determining whether claims lack legal or evidentiary support and the basis for imposing sanctions.
• In re Marriage of Reese & Malakoff, 17 Cal.App.5th 948 (2017) – This case further discusses the requirements for imposing monetary sanctions under CCP § 128.7, reiterating that they should be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct.

Why Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 plays a critical role in California personal injury litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants, shaping strategy and promoting ethical conduct.

For Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys:

• Encourages Thorough Investigation: This statute compels plaintiff attorneys to conduct a diligent pre-filing investigation into both the facts and the law before initiating a lawsuit. This means gathering evidence, reviewing medical records, consulting experts, and understanding legal precedents to ensure claims for damages, liability, and injuries are well-supported.
• Prevents Baseless Lawsuits: It deters the filing of speculative or “shotgun” complaints that lack specific factual allegations or legal merit. This protects plaintiffs from pursuing cases that are likely to fail and could result in financial penalties against their attorney or even themselves.
• Protects Clients from Attorney Misconduct: Clients can be held jointly responsible for violations, but monetary sanctions for unwarranted legal arguments typically fall on the attorney. This provides an incentive for attorneys to act responsibly, shielding clients from potential financial harm due to their lawyer’s improper conduct.

For Defendants and Their Attorneys:

• Tool Against Frivolous Claims: CCP § 128.7 provides a powerful mechanism for defense attorneys to challenge baseless or harassing personal injury claims. If a plaintiff’s complaint or motion lacks evidentiary support or is filed for an improper purpose, the defense can use this statute to seek sanctions.
• Deters Litigation Abuse: It helps prevent “nuisance” lawsuits or claims designed solely to pressure a quick, unwarranted settlement. By making it costly to pursue such tactics, the statute encourages plaintiffs to bring only legitimate claims.
• Recovers Costs: If a defendant successfully brings a sanctions motion, the court may order the plaintiff’s attorney or law firm to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred by the defendant as a direct result of the frivolous filing. This can help offset the costs of defending against unfounded claims.

Overall Impact on Personal Injury Litigation:
By demanding accountability and promoting rigorous pre-filing diligence, CCP § 128.7 contributes to a more efficient and fair personal injury legal system. It reduces the number of unfounded claims that clog court dockets, lowers litigation costs for all parties by discouraging unnecessary disputes, and reinforces the ethical obligations of legal professionals. Both personal injury clients and lawyers must be aware of its implications to avoid penalties and ensure their legal strategies are both effective and compliant with California law.