{"id":150,"date":"2026-04-14T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=150"},"modified":"2026-04-14T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T12:00:00","slug":"zand-v-sukumar-frivolous-appeal-sanctions-anti-slapp-fee-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=150","title":{"rendered":"Zand v. Sukumar \u2014 Court of Appeal Sanctions Frivolous Appeal Attacking Anti-SLAPP Fee Award Already Affirmed in Prior Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Zand v. Sukumar<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
1st District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-14<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
A171273<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Anti-SLAPP; Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16; attorney’s fees on appeal; frivolous appeal sanctions; law of the case<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

This case is the second appeal in a long-running dispute between Ponani Sukumar and self-represented appellant Afshin Zand. In the original litigation, Sukumar sued Zand for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, and unfair competition. Zand filed a cross-complaint, which the trial court struck under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) and awarded Sukumar attorney’s fees as the prevailing defendant on the anti-SLAPP motion.<\/p>\n

Zand appealed in Zand I, asserting various challenges including that Sukumar’s underlying complaint contained falsehoods. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal and fee award in 2024 and granted Sukumar additional fees for the appeal, with the amount to be determined on remand. On remand, the trial court awarded Sukumar $41,580 in appellate fees.<\/p>\n

Zand then filed this second appeal. Rather than challenge the reasonableness of the $41,580 amount, Zand attempted to attack Sukumar’s entitlement to fees by arguing the trial court had never effectively granted the original anti-SLAPP motion. He also raised novel theories such as that Sukumar’s filing of an errata in the prior appeal had effectively withdrawn his brief and that the trial judges who ruled against him had lacked jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, affirmed the fee award and imposed sanctions against Zand for filing a frivolous appeal. The court found Zand’s arguments to be “aggressively creative” but entirely without merit.<\/p>\n

Zand’s attempts to relitigate the underlying anti-SLAPP ruling were barred by the law of the case doctrine. The Court of Appeal had already affirmed Sukumar’s entitlement to fees in Zand I, and that ruling was binding in subsequent proceedings in the same case. Issues that Zand could have raised in the first appeal but did not raise, or that the prior opinion rejected explicitly or implicitly, could not be revived in this second appeal.<\/p>\n

The court rejected Zand’s procedural challenges based on the timing and method of filing the original anti-SLAPP order, finding the order had clearly been entered and was effective. Judicial disqualification arguments, even if they had arguable merit, had to be raised by writ review at the time and could not now serve as a collateral attack on the underlying rulings.<\/p>\n

Because Zand’s appeal lacked even arguable merit and appeared designed to harass Sukumar and prolong the litigation, the court granted Sukumar’s motion for sanctions for the pursuit of a frivolous appeal in addition to awarding fees for this second appeal.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n