Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV30947, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV30947, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30947 Hearing Date: June 17, 2024 Dept: 61

ALICE ESCOTO vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

TENTATIVE

Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Alice Escoto and her Counsel is DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party's attorney, or both.

Sanctions pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party's moving or responding papers; or on the court's own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 177.5.)

“In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules.” (CRC Rule 2.30, subd. (b).)

Defendant City of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves for sanctions against Plaintiff Alice Escoto and her counsel for their failure to appear for the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) set by court order for May 26, 2024. Defendant argues that Plaintiff and her counsel willfully failed to appear after Defendant refused to stipulate to a continuance of the conference. (Neishlos Decl. 5.) Defendant seeks $6,000.00 in sanctions, representing six hours of attorney work expended on the present motion, four hours preparing for and attending the MSC, and two hours meeting and conferring with Defendant on the MSC, at a rate of $500 per hour. (Neishlos Decl. ¶¶ 10–11.) Defendant also seeks a $1,500 penalty under Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5.

Plaintiff in opposition argues that the MSC was rendered ineffectual at the outset by Defendant’s disclosure that no agent of the City authorized to settle the case would be present. (Opposition at p. 9.) Plaintiff notes that the order establishing the MSC stated:

The following persons with settlement authority are ordered to appear at the virtual MSC: (1) the parties named in the dispute; (2) an authorized representative of a corporation or other business entity or government entity which is a party; and (3) an authorized representative of an insurance company which has coverage or has coverage at issue. These persons must have full authority to negotiate and make decisions on settlement of the case. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Local Rule 3.25 (e)(1)). Counsel are responsible for ensuring that the person listed above are present for the MSC. The court strongly urges all participants to test audio and video capabilities of the equipment the participants will use prior to the MSC. (Motion Exh. A.)

Plaintiff’s counsel presents a declaration stating that in a telephone conference on May 8, 2024, to confer regarding the MSC, Defendant’s counsel revealed that no authorized City agent would appear at the MSC, that it would be “ok if plaintiff doesn’t show up personally, either.” (Denis Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant is thus guilty of the same failure to appear for the MSC that it accuses Plaintiff of, and accordingly $10,000 in sanctions are properly sought against Defendant. (Opposition at pp. 10–11; Denis Decl. ¶¶ 8–9; Galvan Decl. ¶ 4.)

No sanctions against Plaintiff are appropriate, as Plaintiff possessed a good faith belief that Defendant would appear at the MSC without the full authority to settle the claim. CRC Rule 3.1380 states:

Trial counsel, parties, and persons with full authority to settle the case must personally attend the conference, unless excused by the court for good cause. If any consent to settle is required for any reason, the party with that consensual authority must be personally present at the conference. (CRC Rule 3.1380, subd. (b).)

Defendant’s counsel here claims that he had authority to settle the case at the MSC. (Neishlos Decl. ¶ 9.) But Plaintiff’s counsel represents that Defendant’s communications prior to the MSC were inconsistent with this representation, and indicating that Plaintiff herself would not need to attend “either.” (Denis Decl. ¶ 3.) Indeed, in an email preceding the MSC, Defendant’s counsel stated, “I will be attending the MSC with a level of settlement authority,” implying that his authority was perhaps less than complete. (Neishlos Decl. Exh. D.)

Sanctions are not appropriate against Defendant. The MSC was court-ordered and could not be continued by the parties except by their stipulation. (Neishlos Decl. Exh. A.) The present motion is supported by substantial justification, even if no relief is appropriate.

The motion is therefore DENIED.