DISCUSSION

An order imposing sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167.) The purpose of section 128.7 is “to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 514.) The statute is intended to promote compliance rather than punish the offender. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 434, 442.) To this end, sanctions may be awarded on a party’s motion or on the court’s own motion, but only after the offender is given 21 days to withdraw or correct the improper paper. (§ 128.7(c).) The 21-day “safe harbor” period begins when the offender is served with a motion for sanctions, which may not be combined with any other motion. (§ 128.7(c)(1).) Or, if the court is acting sua sponte, the “safe harbor” period is triggered by service of an order that describes the sanctionable conduct and directs the offender to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. (§ 128.7(c)(2).) Both Gillette and the court purported to proceed under section 128.7, but neither complied with the letter or purpose of the statute. Although Gillette maintained that the complaint in case No. BC480390 was improperly filed, he did not serve Ruiz with a separate motion for sanctions requiring the withdrawal of the complaint within 21 days. Nor did the court issue an OSC identifying the complaint as the offending paper. Rather, the only sanctionable conduct the court identified was the failure to file a notice of related case. Even assuming section 128.7 applies to such conduct, compliance was rendered moot by the fact that Gillette filed a notice of related case before the court issued an OSC regarding sanctions. A party is not required to file a notice of related case if another

3 party has already filed such a notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(k).) The imposition of sanctions under the circumstances was strictly punitive and contrary to the purpose of the statute. (Cf. Malovec v. Hamrell, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 442 [if compliance is no longer possible, “imposition of sanctions becomes strictly punitive, not an intended purpose of the statute”].) The court’s imposition of increased sanctions on Lee for his approval of the response to the OSC also was improper. (See Goodstone v. Southwest Airlines Co. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 406, 424 [frivolous response to sanctions motion not sanctionable where motion made in violation of safe-harbor provision].)

DISPOSITION

The October 5, 2012 order imposing sanctions is reversed. Appellants to recover their costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

MANELLA, J.

SUZUKAWA, J.

4