Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19STCV013217, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV013217, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV013217 Hearing Date: May 13, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 5/13/24

CASE NO./NAME: 19STCV03217 MADISON CASTELLANOS vs LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant Los Angeles Community College

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SANCTIONS IS DENIED

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 provides for sanctions against a party who is guilty of “actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (a).) “‘Actions or tactics’ include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading.” (Id., subd. (b).) “A reasonable interpretation is that [section 128.5] also applies to entire actions not based on good faith that are frivolous or cause unnecessary delay in the resolution of a dispute.” (Lesser v. Huntington Harbor Corp. (1985) 173 Cal. App. 3d 922, 930.) This section authorizes trial courts to order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of a litigation opponent’s tactics or actions not based on good faith which are frivolous, or which cause unnecessary delay. (Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 804, 809.)¿

An objective standard is used when determining if section 128.5 sanctions are appropriate; that is, a motion is totally and completely without merit only where¿any reasonable attorney¿would agree that the action is totally and completely without merit. (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon¿(1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 12; San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1319.)

Discussion

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present case after a teacher closed a door on her finger. On October 3, 2023, Defendant filed for summary judgment, and the Court held a hearing on this motion on March 22, 2024. After requesting supplemental briefing, on May 2, 2024, the Court granted summary adjudication to the premises liability/dangerous condition cause of action and denied summary adjudication as to the negligence cause of action. Plaintiff now moves the Court for sanctions, arguing that Defendant filed the MSJ for the frivolous purpose of forcing a settlement or wasting the Court's time. The Court disagrees and does not find the motion to be frivolous. The Court granted summary adjudication to the dangerous condition cause of action reflecting that the motion was far from frivolous.

Furthermore, Plaintiff bases the bulk of the motion on the argument that the evidence Defendant introduced in its motion for summary judgment is objectionable, including hearsay. However, Plaintiff has not provided any authority that providing alleged hearsay evidence constitutes grounds for sanctions. If that were the case, every motion for summary judgment before the court could be sanctionable. Furthermore, the Court has already examined and overruled these evidentiary objections in Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (May 2, 2024, Minute Order at pg. 7.) Thus, the Court denies the present motion and requests for sanctions and attorney fees.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.