Genutec Business Solutions v. Taus
This appeal concerns two motions for sanctions made under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.[1] The underlying lawsuit concerns Genutec Business Solutions’ (Genutec’s) breach of fiduciary duty claims against its former attorneys, accountants, and board of directors, including Michael Taus and Lawnae Hunter. Believing there was no basis for a lawsuit against them, Taus and Hunter filed a section 128.7 motion for sanctions (hereafter referred to in this opinion as the Taus/Hunter sanctions motion). They sought $1,098,046.03 against Genutec and its counsel, namely, (1) the Law Offices of Candice Bryner (the Bryner Firm), and (2) Shulman, Hodges & Bastian (the Shulman Firm). In response, Genutec filed a counter motion for sanctions permitted by
section 128.7, subdivision (h), on the grounds the Taus/Hunter sanctions motion was filed primarily for an improper purpose (hereafter the counter motion). The counter motion sought $51,990 against Taus, Hunter, and their counsel, Eisner, Kahan & Gorry (the Eisner Firm).[2]
The court denied the Taus/Hunter motion for sanctions. It awarded the Bryner Firm $45,000 for attorney fees and costs incurred to successfully oppose this motion. The court granted the counter motion, awarding Genutec sanctions of $50,467.50.
On appeal, Taus, Hunter, and the Eisner Firm make the following arguments: (1) the court should have granted their motion for sanctions; and (2) it was an abuse of discretion to award sanctions to the Lee Firm, the Bryner Firm, and the
Shulman Firm because they were all self-represented litigants. Genutec filed a cross-appeal, arguing the trial court erred in denying its request for attorney fees incurred in defending the Taus/Hunter sanctions motion. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s orders.
Comments on Genutec Business Solutions v. Taus