Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV17683, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17683    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Puneh Kitchen, Jonathan Kitchen, and Jesse Kitchen filed this action against Defendants Tesla, Inc., Tesla Energy Operations, Inc., and Does 1-100 for general negligence. 

On November 28, 2022, Defendants Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Energy Operations, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed an answer. 

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel Thomas G. Stolpman (“Stolpman” or “Plaintiffs’ counsel”) did not appear at the final status conference.  Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Court continued the trial and extended motion and discovery deadlines. 

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not appear at the continued final status conference.  The Court ordered Stolpman Law Group to pay $250.00 in sanctions to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles by 09/30/2024 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 for failure to comply with the 8th Amended General Standing Order to be ready for the final status conference pursuant to Sections 12 & 15. 

On October 1, 2024, the day set for trial, Plaintiffs’ counsel phoned the Court at 8:35 a.m. saying he would not appear in the courtroom until 9:30 a.m.  Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared in the courtroom at 9:36 a.m. but did not have the exhibit binders.  The Court continued the trial to October 2, 2024, ordered counsel to bring all trial and exhibit binders to the courtroom on the trial date, and ordered all counsel to appear personally in the courtroom at 8:30 a.m.  The Court stated that if counsel are late or fail to appear the case may be dismissed.  The Court admonished Plaintiffs’ counsel that the case would be dismissed if he was late again. 

On October 2, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant Tesla, Inc. with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request.  The Court continued the trial to October 21, 2024 because no trial courtrooms were available.  The Court repeated its admonition that if counsel were late or failed to appear the case could be dismissed. 

On October 9, 2024, Defendant Tesla Energy Operations, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel.  The motion asked the Court to impose sanctions of $16,587.22 on Plaintiffs’ counsel under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 575.2 based on counsel’s “actions on September 18, 2024 and on October 1, 2024.”  The motion was set for hearing on November 5, 2024. 

On October 21, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel phoned the Court at 8:30 a.m. to say he would be in the courtroom shortly.  By 9:05 a.m., Plaintiffs’ counsel had not appeared.  The Court dismissed the case without prejudice at Defendant’s counsel’s oral request. 

On October 30, 2024, Defendant filed another motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel.  The motion was set for hearing on December 3, 2024.  On November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  On November 22, 2024, Defendant filed a reply.  The Court continued the hearing to December 9, 2024. 

On November 5, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s October 9, 2024 motion for sanctions based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failures to appear ready for trial.  The Court awarded Defendant $3,630.00 and ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to pay Defendant this amount within 30 days. 

On December 2, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Defendant asks the Court to impose $15,325.90 on Plaintiffs’ counsel under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 575.2 based on counsel’s October 21, 2024 actions. 

Plaintiffs dispute the reasonableness of the sanctions amount which Defendant is requesting. 

DISCUSSION 

          “A dismissal terminates an action. [Citation.]  The dismissal of an entire action deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction of the matter, as well as of personal jurisdiction over the parties.”  (Estate of Garrett (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 831, 838 [trial court dismissed case for failure to prosecute].) 

          Here, the Court has dismissed the complaint and entered judgment against Plaintiffs.  As a result, the Court does not appear to have jurisdiction to award sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel.  At a minimum, Defendant has not explained the basis for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to award sanctions. 

          The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motion of Defendant Tesla Energy Operations, Inc. to impose sanctions on counsel for Plaintiffs Puneh Kitchen, Jonathan Kitchen, and Jesse Kitchen filed on October 30, 2024. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.