Monday, November 17, 2025
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Sanctions Must Be Paid for Citing Unpublished Cases
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three if the Fourth District Court of Appeal has decreed that a judge must determine, on remand, the amount of sanctions to be paid based on the appellant having impermissibly cited unpublished cases in its briefs on appeal and committing other violations of the rules of court and is also to decide whether the sums are to be paid by the party, its lawyer, or both.
The lawyer is Gerard P. Fox whose office is in Century City. According to a biographical blurb placed on a website:
“Gerard (‘Gerry’) Fox graduated from Georgetown Law School, magna cum laude, and received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Richmond. Mr. Fox has acted as lead trial counsel for clients such as Vivendi, Clear Channel and Dow Chemical. Gerry has also represented a wide variety of high net worth individuals, privately owned companies and high profile entertainers including Madonna, James Gandolfini, Anita Baker, Rush Limbaugh, Art Neville and the Isley Brothers.”
Escrow Company Sued
Fox’s client in the case dealt with by the appeals court on Thursday, ARC Retail 1, LLC, sued an escrow company for an alleged failure to follow its instructions, with Orange Superior Court Judge William D. Claster granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Orange Coast Title Company of Southern California.
ARC appealed, asserting that “multiple breaches of contract and failures to comply with duties owed to ARC” on the part of Orange Coast “caused ARC to suffer extensive damages” and that summary judgment was improperly granted.
Orange Coast sought in its motion for sanctions, based on the alleged frivolousness of the appeal, the amount of $26,542.50 which it says it paid its appellate lawyers, Howard D. Hall, Jeremy T. Katz, and Kasandra C. Goldberg of the Santa Ana firm of Hall Griffin LLP.
Authoring an unpublished Court of Appeal opinion was Orange Superior Court Judge Julianne Sartain Bancroft, sitting on assignment by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero—with confidence on the part of Guerrero in her being reflected despite Bancroft having been a trial court judge for barely a year. When appointed on Oct. 9 of 2024, she was a senior appellate research attorney for the division on which she is now serving as a pro tem.
Bancroft’s opinion affirms the summary judgment, agreeing with Claster that there are no triable issues of fact.
Appeal Not Frivolous
Addressing the request for sanctions, the acting justice wrote:
“We cannot say on this record that the appeal is wholly without merit. However, even where an appeal is not frivolous, this court has authority under rule 8.276 to sanction a party who unreasonably violates the California Rules of Court.”
That rule provides that “[o]n motion of a party or its own motion, a Court of Appeal may impose sanctions…on a party or an attorney for” three specified acts and for “[c]ommitting any other unreasonable violation of these rules.”
Bancroft recited:
“Here, ARC’s counsel’s extensive reliance on unpublished opinions, inaccurate quotations from the cases cited, and failure to properly cite supporting evidence in the record justifies the imposition of sanctions. ARC’s opening brief cites three unpublished cases, and its reply brief cites an additional three. Absent specific circumstances not applicable here, a party may not cite an unpublished opinion.”
She continued:
“[A]lthough ARC repeatedly refers to a lis pendens allegedly recorded in this case, its record citations are to ARC’s own opposition to Orange Coast’s motion for summary judgment, which is clearly not evidence. Further, most if not all record citations in ARC’s brief were to incorrect pages from the appellate record.
“Courts have sanctioned attorneys for failing to support assertions of law with legal authority or for including improper material in appellate briefs, even where the appeal is not frivolous.”
Among the cases Bancroft cited was Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., handed down Sept. 12 by Div. Three of this district’s Court of Appeal. In an opinion by Presiding Justice Lee Edmon, the court ordered the plaintiff/appellant’s lawyer, Amir Mostafavi, to pay the court clerk $10.000 in sanctions “for citing legal authority fabricated by an artificial intelligence chatbot.”
Trial Court’s Chore
Bancroft declared:
“We remand the matter to the trial court to determine: (1) whether sanctions should be awarded against ARC. its appellate counsel, or both: and (2) the appropriate amount of an award of sanctions to compensate Orange Coast for the attorney fees and other expenses it incurred on appeal, which award will deter ARC and/or its appellate counsel from violating the Rules of Court in the future. If the court imposes sanctions against ARC’s appellate counsel in an amount in excess of $1,000, it shall notify the State Bar and counsel.”
The case is ARC Retail 1 LLC v. Orange Coast Title Co. of Southern California, G062923.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company