Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 23STCP02282, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02282    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 61

Respondent George Panoussis’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Petitioner to give notice.

I.       MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Respondent George Panoussis (Respondent) moves for sanctions against Petitioner Mark Gomez (Petitioner) on the grounds that Petitioner’s case management statement falsely states that Petitioner conferred with Respondent before filing it, on the grounds that the statement says it is a “joint” statement, and further on the grounds that it included a false proof of service, when Respondent did not receive notice of the case management hearing until after that hearing had taken place. (Motion at pp. 3–5.)

Respondent’s motion is defective. First, Respondent has been in default since default was entered against him on September 20, 2023. “The entry of a default terminates a defendant's rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either its default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.” (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385.) Additionally, Respondent’s motion is based on Rule 8.276 of the California Rules of Court, which by its terms applies only to the Court of Appeal, not this trial court. Moreover, Respondent’s sole basis for his claim that Petitioners committed perjury is his late receipt of the notice of the case management conference. Although Respondent contends that Petitioners’ case management statement falsely states it is a “joint” statement, it is labeled a joint statement because it is filed jointly by two Petitioners: Mark Gomez and Gomez Law, APC. Finally, Respondent’s motion is unopposed, and its proof of service lists neither a date nor manner of service.

The motion is therefore DENIED.