Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00031427-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00031427-CU-BC-CTL GREEN LIFE BUSINESS GROUP INC VS LEFT MENDOTA I LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Sanctions, 02/06/2024

Defendants Left Mendota I LLC, Benjamin Kriger and Christopher Lefkovitz's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Background Plaintiff filed a Complaint, asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; (4) intentional interference with contractual relations.

On November 20, 2023, Defendants filed a demurrer after Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as it represented it would. With all parties present, the hearing was advanced to March 15, 2024. (ROA 31.) Plaintiff did not oppose. After the tentative ruling was posted, Plaintiff requested and the Court entered a dismissal. (ROA 45.) It is unknown if this dismissal was in the record at the time of the demurrer hearing.

At the hearing, Plaintiff maintained it mis-calendared the motion hearing date, sought leave to file an opposition and articulated how the pleading defects could be cured. (ROA 39.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file and serve an amended complaint no later than March 22, 2024. The record does not reflect the filing of an amended complaint. So, technically, the case was dismissed and there is no operative complaint on file.

Discussion In light of the issues presented in this motion, the Court considered Plaintiff's late opposition to this motion. (C.C.P., § 1005(b); ROA 49-50.) The Court also considered Defendants' reply.

This motion is for sanctions under C.C.P. sections 128.5 and 128.7 against Plaintiff and its counsel Gordon Sattro of Sattro Law Group PC on the basis Plaintiff filed a complaint without a good faith belief that Defendants owed Plaintiff any funds or commissions, but merely to pressure them into some type of payment.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, the Court can still issue sanctions under C.C.P. section 128.5 and 128.7. (Abandonato v. Coldren (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 264, 267 disapproved of on other grounds by Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 520 (ruling plaintiffs may be sanctioned under C.C.P. section 128.5 for filing a frivolous action notwithstanding their voluntary dismissal of the action prior to the sanctions hearing); Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 967, 976 (trial courts retain postdismissal jurisdiction to decide motions for sanctions and attorney fees under C.C.P. section 128.7).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3058646  48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GREEN LIFE BUSINESS GROUP INC VS LEFT MENDOTA I LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00031427-CU-BC-CTL There is no dispute Defendants complied with the safe-harbor provisions in each statute.

The sanctions requested under C.C.P. section 128.5 are denied because there is no evidence of bad faith. (C.C.P., § 128.5(a); see, In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 134-35 (explaining conduct must be both frivolous and in subjective bad faith to support sanctions under section 128.5 and 'bad faith' as used in section 128.5 means an action or tactic undertaken for an improper purpose or motive, which is a subjective inquiry).) With regards to the sanctions sought under C.C.P. section 128.7, Plaintiff's opposition provided sufficient evidentiary support to avoid sanctions. (ROA 50 – Declaration of Gordon Sattro; see also, Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1110, 1126 [the evidentiary burden to escape sanctions under section 128.7 is light].) Further, Defendants did not provide any basis for their fees. The notice of motion asks for attorney fees not less than $15,000; the memorandum asks for $30,000. The declaration is silent as to how these fees were calculated. Thus, they have not met their burden as to $15,000 or $30,000.

Thus, the motion is DENIED.

Concluding Orders The Court also sets an OSC why this case should not be considered dismissed in light of Plaintiff's dismissal filed and entered on March 13, 2024, on June 28, 2024, at 9:15 a.m. in Department 70.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendants are ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by May 29, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3058646  48