Ari Law P.C. v. Autonation.com, Inc.

Procedural Issue

Sanctions safe harbor — notice of motion need not specify a hearing date

Holding

The First District held that the safe harbor notice provisions of Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7 do not require the served notice of motion for sanctions to specify an exact hearing date, at least where local court procedure (as in San Mateo County) does not assign a hearing date until the motion is filed. The court expressly disagreed with the Second District's Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank and the more recent J.N. v. Goldberg, both of which had extended strict-compliance requirements to the notice provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 and treated an unspecified hearing date as a fatal defect. So long as the substance of the served and filed motions is the same and the moving party observes the full 21-day safe harbor period measured from service, a later-specified or changed hearing date does not defeat the safe harbor. The court also held that a party who appears and opposes a sanctions motion on the merits — without showing prejudice from the notice defect — waives any objection to defective notice.

Why It Matters

This opens a split with the Second District's Galleria Plus and J.N. v. Goldberg line, so don't assume the rule is settled statewide. In the First District — and any county where hearing dates aren't assigned until the sanctions motion is filed — a served notice of motion for sanctions doesn't need to name an exact hearing date to preserve the safe harbor, but you still need to measure the 21-day period from the date of service and keep the substance of the served and filed motions the same. If you're litigating in the Second District, Galleria Plus and J.N. are still good law there, so the safer practice remains locking down a hearing date wherever local rules allow it. And if you're the party trying to preserve a defective-notice objection, this case is a reminder to do it cleanly: object at the earliest opportunity, be prepared to show actual prejudice, and don't also argue the merits of the sanctions motion at the same hearing — doing both waives the notice objection outright.

About This Entry

Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four
Topic: Civil Procedure
Month: September 2026
Publication status: Published
Last verified: 2026-09-02

Using this website or submitting a conflict check does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not extend, suspend, stay, or otherwise affect any legal, trial-court, appellate, or other deadline or proceeding.