Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV27665, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27665    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff Northern California Collection Service, Inc. filed a complaint for open book monies due against Defendant Jaime Huete. This is a collections case where Defendant became indebted to the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for unpaid insurance premiums. SCIF assigned the account to Plaintiff for collection purposes.

After receiving unsatisfactory responses to form interrogatories asking Defendant for information supporting his affirmative defenses, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses which was granted. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s court-ordered responses are still insufficient to support the affirmative defenses and presently moves under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 for an order striking the defenses.

LEGAL STANDARD

By presenting or advocating a pleading or petition to the court, an attorney represents that the pleading is made for a proper purpose and is supported by the law and evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b).) The court may sanction the attorneys or parties responsible for a violation of this provision. (Id., subd. (c).) Such a sanction is limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the offending conduct and may include nonmonetary sanctions. (Id., subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

            The bar for imposing sanctions under Section 128.7 is high. “Because our adversary system requires that attorneys and litigants be provided substantial breathing room to develop and assert factual and legal arguments, [section 128.7] sanctions should not be routinely or easily awarded even for a claim that is arguably frivolous and instead should be made with restraint. Indeed, even if a plaintiff could not successfully defend against either demurrer or summary judgment, that alone is insufficient to support the sanction of dismissal.” (Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1110, 1121, internal citations omitted.)   

            A claim is frivolous if it is “totally and completely without merit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).) Thus, if Defendant has some reasonable basis for his defenses, they cannot be considered frivolous, even if the defenses would fail on a demurrer or summary judgment. (Kumar, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 1121.) Even if Defendant’s discovery responses are inadequate to support his defenses, that does not mean Defendant filed a frivolous pleading.

            Defendant’s responses to the FROGs indicate that he has some reasonable basis for asserting the listed defenses. (See LeLievre Decl., Ex. 64, 65.) Defendant’s responses show that he believes neither SCIF nor Plaintiff has a legitimate basis for claiming the particular amount sought in this action. Indeed, the Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff was unable to procure any evidence of the amount owed. (See January 12, 2022 Order re MSJ 4:4-12.) By contrast, Defendant presented evidence that he did not agree to the amount claimed. (Id., 5:20-6:5.) Given this context, it cannot be said that Defendant’s pleading is frivolous, or “totally and completely without merit.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).)      

            Lastly, it should be noted that Plaintiff itself provided inadequate discovery responses which resulted in an order compelling further responses and monetary sanctions. (See August 8, 2022 Order re Def.’s Mtn. to Compel.) Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant’s answer based on inadequate discovery responses even though Plaintiff failed to properly identify documents in support of its own two causes of action. If Plaintiff’s argument in this motion is accepted, Plaintiff’s own complaint could be stricken pursuant to Section 128.7.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.