Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV10762, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 16, 2024

Case Name: Middleton, et al. v. Lee, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV30580

Matter: Motion for Sanctions 

Moving Party: Defendants Roy Lee and RL Films2, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs John P. Middleton and The John Powers Middleton Companies, 

LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This action was filed on August 28, 2019.  

On January 17, 2023, the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was dismissed. 

On March 9, 2023, this dismissal was set aside, subject to the condition that Defendants’ expenses be paid.

On October 12, 2023, the Court ruled that the aforementioned expenses totaled $16,420.50 and that they must be paid within 45 days. 

On November 6, 2023, the Court entered an order pursuant to a stipulation by the parties that Plaintiffs must produce certain documents by November 27, 2023.

On February 5, 2024, the Court heard a second motion to dismiss by Defendants Roy Lee and RL Films2, Inc.  They argued that “(1) Plaintiffs have failed to bring this matter for trial within three years after commencing the action against Defendants; (2) the Court should reinstate its prior dismissal of the SAC due to Plaintiffs’ failure to fulfill a condition of relief – namely, payment of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees; (3) Plaintiffs have failed to obey court order requiring them to pay attorneys’ fees and produce documents by November 27, 2023.”

The Court denied the second motion to dismiss, stating “With fees having been paid and an evidentiary sanction applicable for the documents at issue, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will not dismiss the SAC at this moment.”  

Defendants now seek sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5 in the amount of $23,926.50.  Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ failure to pay Defendants’ fee award of $16,420.50 until Plaintiffs filed the second motion to dismiss was frivolous or designed to cause delay.  That is, Defendants contend that they shouldn’t have been forced to file the second motion to dismiss to obtain Plaintiffs’ compliance with the fee award.  The request for $23,926.50 in sanctions represents the fees associated with the second motion to dismiss, as well as the instant Motion.

Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(a) provides in relevant part, “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. ”   A determination of frivolousness requires a finding that the tactics at issue were “totally and completely without merit” (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(b)(2)), that is, “any reasonably attorney would agree such a motion is totally devoid of merit.”  (Karwasky v. Zachay (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 679, 681.)  “There must also be a showing of an improper purpose, i.e., subjective bad faith on the part of the attorney or party to be sanctioned.”  (In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 135.)

First, the second motion to dismiss should not have been necessary on the basis of unpaid fees, because, technically, when the trial court conditions the setting aside of a dismissal on fees, the dismissal remains in place until such fees have been paid.  (See Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Disc. Stores  (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 424, 439 [“[U]ntil the sanctions were paid, the default judgment was still in effect and neither the vacation of the default nor defendant's request for a trial de novo was operative.”].)

Second, assuming the dismissal was set aside and the second motion to dismiss was necessary, the Court is not aware of any authority in which sanctions were awarded under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5 on the basis of a party’s failure to pay fees or sanctions.  Typically, when a sanctions/fees award is not paid, one follows judgment enforcement procedures.  (See Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 759 [“An order imposing monetary sanctions may be enforced under the Enforcement of Judgments Law.”].)

Third, if the Court were to award sanctions under this factual scenario, there would need to be evidence that the failure to tender fees was in bad faith, frivolous, or solely intended to cause delay, which the Court believes requires a showing that Plaintiffs actually had funds but intentionally chose not to pay Defendants.  There is no such evidence.  There is only a statement that Plaintiff Middleton is a part-owner of the Phillies baseball team.  This alone is not sufficient.

For these reasons, the Motion is denied.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.