Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV28561, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 5, 2024

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

Case No.: 19STCV30580

Matter: Motion to Dismiss 

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.

The trial date is set for March 18, 2024.

Defendants Roy Lee and RL Films2, Inc. now seek to dismiss the SAC again because “(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.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 583.410 allows the Court to dismiss an action in its discretion in appropriate circumstances due to delay in prosecution, and Code Civ. Proc. § 583.420(a)(2)(A) provides that the Court may dismiss an action three years after its filing. 

Defendants also cite Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(h), which relates to terminating sanctions and the like. 

Plaintiffs contend that their “efforts to gather documents and fund aspects of the litigation have been impaired by Middleton’s ongoing trust litigation resulting from the trustee of trusts in which he is the beneficiary refusing to fund this litigation.”

The Court’s fee award has now been paid, with the Reply confirming this.  The Reply indicates there was a delay in providing payment, but this alone is insufficient to justify a dismissal of the SAC.

Further, if documents have not been produced, the Court’s order and the accompanying stipulation make clear that the penalty for this is evidentiary sanctions: “Plaintiffs shall be precluded from introducing as evidence at trial any documents responsive to the Requests that have not been produced to Defendants as of November 27, 2023, with the exception of documents later-obtained through third parties not in Plaintiffs’ control. 6. To the extent that Plaintiffs later obtain documents responsive to the Requests, Plaintiffs shall produce those documents to Defendants within seven (7) calendar days of receipt. Plaintiffs agree that they shall be precluded from introducing as evidence at trial any later-obtained documents not produced in this manner.”  

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.  

The Motion to Dismiss is denied.  The objections are overruled.

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.