Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV16874, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16874    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Stephanie Salto Soto

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendants Liberty Global, LLC, Ingenious, LLC, Gesler Alvizu, Adam Alvardo, Marc Lelah.

Motion for Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Stephanie Salto (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Liberty Global, LLC, Ingenious, LLC, GEsler Alvizu, Adam Alvardo, and Marc Lelah (Defendants). Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: discrimination; harassment; retaliation under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; failure to engage in good faith interactive process; negligent supervision; assault; retaliation under Labor Code; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and declaratory judgment.

            On December 9, 2022, the court overruled Defendants’ demurrer and denied Defendants’ motion to strike in its entirety.

            Before the hearing, Plaintiffs filed this motion for sanctions as to Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, subdivision (a) provides: “A trial court may order a party, the party’s attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” The statute defines frivolous as “totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).) Sanctions are imposed only for the “most egregious conduct” and in the “clearest of cases.” (Luke v. Baldwin-United Corp. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 664, 668-669.) On a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, the moving party has the burden of proof. (Weisman v. Bower (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1231, 1236.)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 514.) “Subdivision (b) requires that parties and their attorneys certify that pleadings or other written matters presented to the courts have merit, ‘to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.’” (Id. at p. 516.) One of the conditions to be met is that the pleading or motion is “not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b)(1).) ¿

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff contends that the court should grant her motion for sanctions on multiple grounds. First, Plaintiff claims that Defendants reserved their motion to strike with demurrer as a motion to strike without demurrer to cause delay. That is, the earliest date available for a motion to strike without demurrer was in December 2022, whereas the earliest date for a motion to strike with demurrer was in September 2022. However, Plaintiff does not persuade the court that Defendants’ inaccurate reservation resulted from a bad faith effort to deceive the court and delay proceedings. Second, Plaintiff points out that Defendants failed to meet and confer in person or by telephone. On December 9, 2022, the court found that Defendants’ attempt to meet and confer, set forth in their declaration, did not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 and 435.5. The court will not award sanctions for that failing, however, because sanctions are imposed only for the “most egregious conduct.” (Luke v. Baldwin-United Corp., supra, 167 Cal.App.3d at pp. 668-669.) Third, Plaintiff points out that Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike were untimely. But the court found that Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the late filing on December 9, 2022. The court does not award sanctions for that failing, either.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿May 17, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court