Silva

Discussion.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Labor Code.

1 rejected an argument that retroactive application of the EAESPA was unconstitutional. (Id. at p. 668.) When confronted with the EAESPA and Calleros, Silva’s counsel indicated they would proceed and appeal to the First District for a decision that disagreed with Calleros. Medic filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (MJOP) and a motion for sanctions. The trial court granted the MJOP, and imposed a $2,000 sanction against Silva’s counsel. Silva and her counsel now appeal, renewing their argument that Calleros was wrongly decided and contending that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions. We disagree and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Augustus Decision In December 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257 (Augustus). The class action plaintiffs in that case worked as security guards for ABM Security Services and were required to remain on call during rest periods. (Id. at p. 261.) The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed. (Ibid.) The California…