Sanctions for kidnapping and attempted murder of defendant reversed

After the plaintiff kidnapped and conspired to murder the defendant in their business lawsuit *Razuki v. Malan* (D4d1 Mar. 20, 2025, No. D082560) (non-pub. opn.), the trial court imposed civil sanctions against the plaintiff of $200,000. But the Court of Appeal reversed. Kidnapping certainly is “bad faith” conduct under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, but to award monetary sanctions to another party the statute requires a causal connection between the conduct and the money award. The language is “incurred as a direct result.” Here, kidnapping was not connected to the $200,000.

The acts are shocking. But the result is not as shocking as it first seems:

1. The parties’ dispute was over their marijuana business. (Perhaps not so shocking.)
2. Razuki conspired to kidnap and murder Malan in Mexico.
3. But the person he hired to carry it out turned out to be a confidential informant. The informant staged the kidnapping of Malan, duct-taped him to a chair, applied makeup to look like he’d been beaten, and then took photos before reporting back to Razuki that he “took care of it” and that it was “done.” Razuki was then arrested and pleaded guilty to conspiring to kidnap and sentenced to seven years.

Yet the Court of Appeal held that it was an abuse of discretion to award $200,000 in section 128.5 sanctions against the plaintiff for plotting to kidnap and murder the defendant. The reason is that the $200,000 in attorneys’ fees purportedly incurred were not “incurred as a direct result of” the criminal conspiracy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(f)(2).)

But Razuki is not off that easy. The court went on to note that section 128.5 “does alternatively allow ‘an order to pay a penalty into court’ in an amount ‘sufficient to deter repetition of the action or tactic or comparable action or tactic by others similarly situated ....’” (§ 128.5, subd. (f)(2).) So on remand, the trial court “must be given the opportunity to decide whether to impose sanctions payable to the court as a penalty.” The trial court must also allow Malan to present evidence to establish the causal connection to support the attorneys’ fees sanction.

Takeaway

Don’t take anything for granted in your motions for sanctions. Even when the facts are in your favor—like your opponent admitting to conspiring to kidnap and murder you—the court still expects you to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements to the letter. Here, the moving party got a little carried away with the sanctions amount, telling the court that the money in the plaintiff’s client-trust account looked like a “nice source of money,” that the sanction should be as much as $4.3 million because that was the amount at stake in the lawsuit, or some percentage of that amount like 1%, erroneously calculating that as $430,000 rather than $43.000.

Stay focused on the legal requirements and make a record of meeting all the statutory elements. That will ensure that, when the trial judge rules in your favor, that ruling will stick.