J.N. v. Goldberg

── J.N. v. Goldberg ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/11/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE J.N. et al., B345334 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24SMCV02941) v. JEFFREY GOLDBERG, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Sorrentino & Associates, Paul F. Sorrentino and Vincent P. Sorrentino for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gutman Law, Alan S. Gutman and Matthew E. Hess for Defendant and Respondent. ___________________________  Appellants/plaintiffs J.N. (through guardian ad litem Brian Nadley), Jordan Nadley, 1 and Jakob Nadley appeal the judgment which followed the trial court’s order granting sanctions (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7) 2 on the motion of defendant/respondent Jeffrey Goldberg. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in ordering sanctions because (1) defendant did not comply with statutory notice requirements, (2) defendant engaged in bad faith conduct during the safe harbor period, (3) the court relied on inadmissible evidence, and (4) the complaint could have been cured by amendment. We focus on the notice requirement, reverse the order (and consequential judgment) based on the lack of compliance with it, and decline to address plaintiffs’ remaining arguments. 3 1 There are multiple references in the record to Ms. Nadley with a different spelling of her first name—Jordyn. The judgment refers to Ms. Nadley as Jordan. 2 Unless otherwise specified, statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 Plaintiffs request we instruct the trial court to grant them leave to amend the complaint. The record reflects leave to amend was not requested in the opposition to the sanctions motion and the record does not include a motion to amend the complaint. According to the statement of decision, a hearing on leave to amend was calendared for January 16, 2025, approximately one month after the sanctions motion was heard and granted. Because the judgment of dismissal was entered on January 28, 2025, with the court noting therein that “the defects [in the complaint] cannot be cured by amendment” (presumably, in part, due to the absence of a request in the opposition), there is an inference that leave to amend was denied. Nonetheless, the court’s comments are in connection with whether sanctions 2  BACKGROUND I. The Court Reservation System (CRS) The parties do not dispute the trial court in this case is one of many in the civil department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court that uses a CRS. The CRS requires a party who seeks to file a motion to first access a website and obtain a “reservation number” from the superior court that identifies when the hearing will be conducted. (See Journal Technologies Court Portal, portal-lasc.journaltech.com (last visited April 27, 2026).) If the motion is not filed within three business days of receipt of the reservation number, the reservation will automatically be cancelled. (Ibid.) The system does not permit the motion date to be reserved more than three days before electronically filing the pleading. (Ibid.) II. The Complaint and Sanctions Motion On June 18, 2024, plaintiffs filed a complaint for financial elder abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.03) by way of fraud or undue influence (Prob. Code, § 859) and intentional misrepresentation (Civ. Code, § 1709). The complaint further alleged plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 15657.5. On October 25, 2024, defendant accessed the superior court’s CRS in order to reserve a hearing date for a section 12