Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19STCV06476, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV06476    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Joon Su Kim v. Koo Nam Rhee, Case no. 19STCV06476

Hearing date May 30, 2025

Defendant Koo Nam Rhee’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiff Kim sued defendant Rhee for injuries sustained when defendant allegedly struck him with a golf club. On 1/9/23 the court dismissed the action due to plaintiff’s failure to appear at an OSC hearing. The court vacated the dismissal 9/14/23 and ordered plaintiff to pay $525 in sanctions. Min. Order 9/13/23. Plaintiff failed to pay these sanctions. Min. Order 4/18/25. Plaintiff missed additional hearings since the dismissal was vacated. Id. Plaintiff was present at the 4/18/25 hearing when the date for this motion was reserved. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion.

“California trial courts possess the inherent power to issue a terminating sanction for pervasive misconduct…” Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 765 [disapproved on unrelated grounds by City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 410, 553]. “California courts have inherent power to terminate litigation for deliberate and egregious misconduct when no other remedy can restore fairness…” Id. at 761. Sanctions are particularly warranted where a party has demonstrated a pattern of abusive and dilatory conduct. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 292-295.

Plaintiff failed to appear at hearings, both before and after the initial dismissal of this action. Plaintiff failed to appear at 9/12/24 and 3/12/25 status conferences, requiring both to be continued. See Min. Orders 9/12/24 and 3/12/25. Plaintiff’s conduct has been dilatory and caused significant delays in a case already over five years old.

Plaintiff failed to pay sanctions ordered over a year and a half ago. Decl. Kim para. 5. Imposition of sanctions has been insufficient to compel plaintiff’s participation. Plaintiff was present when the court reserved the date for this motion, but he has not filed opposition. Plaintiff repeatedly demonstrated an intent not to comply with court orders or to participate in litigation he instituted. The court gave plaintiff a chance to participate in the litigation when it vacated the prior dismissal; he has not done so. At this time, terminating sanctions are appropriate.

Defendant requests sanctions of $1,750. Defendant requests a reasonable $350/hour: 1 hour for the 9/12/24 hearing, 1 hour for the 3/12/25 hearing, 2.5 hours for the motion and 0.5 hours for a reply. Decl. Kim para. 7-8. As no opposition was filed, no reply is required. Plaintiff’s failure to appear necessitated continuation of the 9/12/24 and 3/12/25 hearings. The court awards 4.5 hours x $350/hour, a total of $1,575. The court repeats its order that plaintiff pay the previously ordered $525 in sanctions. GRANTED, sanctions payable within 30 days.