RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff in pro per Edward Ringgold’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for sanctions against counsel for Defendant Burgett Inc. dba Pianodisc (“Defendant”) under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7 is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel Arielle M. Rediger & Robert L. Rediger in Department 8C

is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s untimely reply filed on June 29, 2026, which is four court days before the hearing. Plaintiff is admonished to review the Court’s holiday calendar when determining filing deadlines.

Background

On June 11, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and require Plaintiff post a security. On September 5, 2024, the Court granted the motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant but denied without prejudice the concurrent request for an order requiring Plaintiff to post a security on the basis that Defendant did not submit evidence to support the imposition of a security. On September 16, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for order requiring Plaintiff post a security.

On August 13, 2025, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion on the basis that Defendant had not met its burden to show that Plaintiff had no probability of prevailing on Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action. After the hearing, the Court continued the matter and ordered additional briefing. After considering the additional briefing, the Court denied the motion on November 6, 2025 for the same reason stated in its August 13, 2025 tentative ruling.

In the present motion, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s motion for order requiring Plaintiff post security filed on September 16, 2024 was frivolous and filed in bad faith. Plaintiff filed the present motion on November 19, 2025, just 13 days after the Court denied Defendant’s motion. The proof of service states that the motion was served via mail on November 19, 2025, the same day it was filed. Plaintiff seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with the 21-day safe harbor provisions of both sections 128.5 and 128.7. As part of this argument, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because it was filed after the Court ruled on the motion for security. Specifically, Defendant argues, “Because Plaintiff’s Motion is premised only on a written motion filed by Defendant, his failure to file the motion prior to the resolution of the underlying motion and his failure to comply with the safe-harbor provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 and 128.7 are fatal to his request for sanctions.” (Opp. MPA, p. 4:23- 26.)

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel Arielle M. Rediger & Robert L. Rediger in Department 8C

Section 128.5 authorizes the Court to order a party to pay sanctions “as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(a).) The safe harbor provision of section 128.5 states:

If 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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(f)(1)(B).)

Under section 128.7, an attorney or unrepresented party who files “a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper” with the court certifies that the filing is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, that the contentions contained therein are warranted and nonfrivolous, that the factual allegations have or are likely to have after reasonable opportunity for investigation evidentiary support, and that the denials of factual contentions are warranted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b)(1)-(4).) Violation of any of the certifications delineated in section 128.7(b) may give rise to sanctions. (Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 967, 976.) The safe harbor provision of section 128.7 states:

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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(c)(1).)

In Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, the court stated:

By including the safe harbor in section 128.7, the Legislature intended to foster compliance with its provisions and to conserve judicial resources otherwise spent adjudicating a sanctions motion by affording a prescribed period of time during which a party may correct or withdraw a frivolous or improper pleading or motion without any penalty. If the merits of the objectionable document are resolved by the court prior to the expiration of the safe harbor period, there is nothing left to correct or withdraw, thereby undermining the remedial purpose of the safe harbor provision. Because compliance with the safe harbor is a prerequisite to recovering sanctions, the burden is appropriately

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel Arielle M. Rediger & Robert L. Rediger in Department 8C

placed on the party seeking the sanctions to ensure the full safe harbor is provided.

(Li, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 593-594, citations omitted.)

Thus, under section 128.7, a motion for sanctions cannot be filed after the underlying offending motion on which the sanctions motion is based has been resolved. (Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 596, 605-606 (Broadcast Music).)

The Court is unaware of any similar case authority holding that a motion for sanctions under section 128.5 cannot be filed once the offending motion has been decided. However, courts have noted that the safe harbor provision under section 128.5 is “nearly identical” to the safe harbor provision under section 128.7. (Transcon Financial, Inc. v. Reid & Hellyer, APC (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 547, 550 (Transcon).) The legislation that resulted in the current version of section 128.5’s safe harbor provision was intended “‘to ensure that Section 128.5 would be “read in harmony with the salutary cognate provisions of section 128.7.”’” (Nutrition Distribution, LLC v.

Southern SARMs, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 117, 130, quoting Assem. Com. On Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 984 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended April 20, 2017, p. 8.) Given the clear intent of the Legislature for the safe harbor provision under section 128.5 to mirror that of section 128.7, the Court concludes that the rule from Li and Broadcast Music that a section 128.7 motion cannot be filed after the underlying motion has been resolved applies to a section 128.5 motion.

The primary difference between the two safe harbor provisions is that section 128.5’s contains the qualifying language that it only applies “[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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(f)(1)(B), emphasis added.) Section 128.7’s safe harbor provision does not contemplate a category of sanctionable conduct that cannot be withdrawn or corrected. (See Code Civ.

Proc. § 128.7(c)(1).) Importantly, section 128.5 applies to “actions or tactics,” and not just papers filed with the court, that are frivolous or made in bad faith. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(a).) On the other hand, section 128.7 applies only to papers presented to the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(a)-(b).) Thus, the Court reads the qualifying language of section 128.5(f)(1)(B) limiting application of the safe harbor provision to alleged actions or tactics “that can be withdrawn or appropriately corrected” to mean that the safe harbor provision applies where the sanctions motion is based on “the making or opposing of a written motion or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading,” and the sanctions motion must be filed before the underlying motion or complaint is resolved.

Where the motion is based on some other action or tactic alleged to be frivolous or made in bad faith, then the safe harbor provision does not apply. This reading gives meaning to the safe harbor provision

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel Arielle M. Rediger & Robert L. Rediger in Department 8C

by ensuring that parties are not able to circumvent the requirement by simply waiting to file their motion until after the underlying motion is resolved. This reading is also consistent with the Legislature’s stated intent of applying section 128.7’s safe harbor provision to section 128.5.

Here, Plaintiff’s motion was filed after the motion for security on which it is based was resolved. The motion was also served the same day it was filed. Thus, Plaintiff did not comply with the safe harbor provisions of section 128.5 and section 128.7 before filing this motion. Compliance with the safe harbor provisions is mandatory. (Transcon, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 551.) In his reply, Plaintiff contends that he sent written correspondence to defense counsel on July 24, 2024 stating that he would seek sanctions if the motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant was not withdrawn. (See Ringgold Decl.

ISO Reply, ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff appears to suggest that his letter constitutes compliance with the safe harbor provisions. However, the statutes explicitly require service of the moving papers 21 days before the motion is filed, and Plaintiff does not provide any authority that this requirement may be satisfied by a letter demanding withdrawal of an allegedly sanctionable motion. Since Plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory safe harbor provisions, his motion for sanctions cannot be granted.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)