Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV04204, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04204    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants Robert H. Bisno; Jeanette Ann Bisno; Bisno Management Company, LLC; Bisno Development Enterprise, LLC; and Bisno Real Estate Group, LLC (“Defendants”) in the amount of $13,620.00.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring the request as a separate motion.

Background

Plaintiff filed this action on February 20, 2024, raising claims for (1) malicious prosecution, and (2) violation of the Bane Act.

On May 6, 2024, Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, noticing the hearing for May 28, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 9, 2024 arguing, inter alia, that the motion did not provide an adequate notice period.

On May 20, 2024, Defendants withdrew the motion, stating that they would re-file it with an adequate notice period.

On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $13,620.00 in attorney’s fees for opposing the motion.

Discussion

If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with a sanctions request, the Court requires a noticed motion that will allow the parties to properly brief the sanctions request.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion is based on both procedural grounds and on a contention that the anti-SLAPP motion was meritless. Thus it appears that Plaintiff’s sanctions request would be best resolved after a decision on the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion, if that timing is possible.

For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice to filing it as a separate motion.