Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV25906, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 8, 2024

Case Name: Ronquillo v. Sohn, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV01659

Matter: Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendants Sidney Sungchul Sohn, Alexander Tsao, and 

Venerable-Counselors At Law, PC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

On May 16, 2024, a default judgment in the amount of $1,000,000 was entered against Defendants Sidney Sungchul Sohn, Alexander Tsao, and Venerable-Counselors At Law, PC.

On June 28, 2024, this default judgment was set aside.

On October 4, 2024, Defendants Sidney Sungchul Sohn, Alexander Tsao, and Venerable-Counselors At Law, PC sought to enforce a settlement with Plaintiff Jose Ronquillo.  They contended that Plaintiff directly approached Defendants and told them that he had terminated his current counsel, FLG; the parties agreed to a settlement; Plaintiff accepted and cashed Defendants’ check; Plaintiff signed a request for dismissal, but—contrary to their knowledge—never filed the request for dismissal; and, instead, Plaintiff thereafter obtained a fraudulent default judgment against Defendants in the amount of $1 million.

The Court granted the motion to enforce settlement, thereby deeming dismissal to be the final resolution of this action.

Defendants now seek sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys in the amount of $37,500 for taking frivolous actions after having settled this case.  The request is pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5.

No oppositions were filed. 

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.)

Because there is no opposition, the propriety of sanctions is conceded against Plaintiff. The Court will award reduced sanctions in the amount of $30,000 against Plaintiff.  The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will not sanction Plaintiff’s counsel.  The Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.

Moving party to give notice.