Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV09151, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09151    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: 74

Yan Shalomov v. Grace Cho, et al.

Defendant JTH Mesa, LLC’s Motion for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over premises liability.

            On March 9, 2021, Plaintiff Yan Shalomov (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Grace Cho. The complaint alleges negligence and premises liability.

            On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Zachary Wood.

            On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Michelle Cho Wood.

            On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant JTH Mesa, LLC (Defendant JTH).

            On October 17, 2023, Defendant JTH filed this motion for sanctions.

EVIDENCE

            The court preserves Defendant’s JTH’s evidentiary objections.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b) provides as follows: “By presenting to the court […] a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney […] is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances […] the following conditions are met […] [t]he allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support, or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”

            If the court determines that an attorney has violated Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b), the court may impose sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION 

            Defendant JTH seeks sanctions because Plaintiff allegedly filed a Doe amendment and brought Defendant JTH into this action without a basis for doing so. That is, Defendant JTH claims it is not involved with the subject property in this action. As Plaintiff notes, though, the evidentiary burden to escape sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, is light. (Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1110, 1126; Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 448 [finding that to avoid sanctions in this context, “the issue is not merely whether the party would prevail on the underlying factual or legal argument”, but rather whether any reasonable attorney would agree that the claim is totally and completely without merit].)

            In opposition, Plaintiff offers evidence suggesting Defendant JTH may be involved with the subject property where Plaintiff sustained his injury. First, Defendant JTH’s public filings indicate the Defendants who own and manage the subject property also own and manage Defendant JTH. (Ganji Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. A; Ex. B.) Second, Defendant JTH lists real estate as its type of business. (Ganji Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. A; Ex. B.) Given this evidence, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant JTH is connected to the subject property is not totally and completely without merit. Thus, the court denies Defendant JTH’s motion for sanctions.

            Last, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant JTH. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c)(1) [“If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion.”].) Here, Plaintiff is the prevailing party and incurred fees in opposing Defendant JTH’s motion. Moreover, the court finds that Defendant JTH’s motion needlessly increased the cost of litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel has proposed a reasonable hourly rate and substantiated his request for attorney fees. (Ganji Decl., ¶ 21.) Thus, the court will award Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $7,500.

CONCLUSION 

            Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendant JTH’s motion for sanctions. The court awards Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $7,500. Defendant JTH shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel $7,500 by February 5, 2024.

            Defendant JTH is ordered to give notice.