Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC00190, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC00190 Hearing Date: February 26, 2024 Dept: 26
Antonyan v. Shadow Mountain View COA, et al.
MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP § 128.7)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Vardan Antonyan’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Vardan Antonyan (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant
action against Defendant Shadow Mountain View Community Association
(“Defendant”) on January 11, 2023. Defendant filed an answer on February 14,
2023. On July 18, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel
production of documents pursuant to deposition subpoena and issued sanctions
against Plaintiff in the amount of $100.00. (Minute Order, 07/18/23.)
Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions on August 2, 2023,
then filed a First Amended Complaint on September 8, 2023. The Court struck the
First Amended Complaint because it was filed without leave. (See Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 472, subd. (a), 436, subd. (b).) The Court denied the first motion
for sanctions on October 24, 2023. (Minute Order, 10/24/23.) On January 22,
2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. (Minute
Order, 01/22/24.)
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Sanctions on February
6, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition the next day.
Discussion
First, Defendant contends that notice of the instant Motion
was inadequate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, which requires
service of the moving papers at least 16 court days prior to the hearing. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Service by electronic mail adds two more court
days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B).) The moving papers were only
served 12 court days prior to the hearing, when they should have been served by
January 29, 2024. Defendant’s opposition specifically objects to this shortened
notice period.
Second, the Motion is an improper attempt to renew the
previously denied motion for sanctions. (See Minute Order, 10/24/23.) The
Motion is based on Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant and its counsel’s
willful non-compliance with discovery obligations, including “failure to adhere
to duly issued subpoenas and requests for production, and presentation of
misleading and false statements to the Court.” (Notice of Motion, filed
02/06/24.) Likewise, the first motion for sanctions was brought based on
Defendant’s objections to the subpoenas served by Plaintiff. (Motion, filed
08/02/23, pp. 3-5.) Code of
Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b) relates to a “renewed motion” whereby
a party seeks the same relief that was previously denied. (California
Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43,
fn. 11; see also Tate v. Wilburn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150,
156-157.)
When a
motion has been denied in whole or in part, the moving party may apply again
for the same relief at a later time only upon “new or different facts,
circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b); see Graham v.
Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 969-970.) The motion must be supported by
declaration showing the previous order, by which judge it was made, and what
new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to exist. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).) There is no time limit under section 1008 for the
renewal of a previous motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subds. (b), (e); Stephen
v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car of San Francisco (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 806, 816.)
The Court lacks the jurisdiction to reconsider a prior ruling, on motion of a
party, where the motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil
Procedure section 1008. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e); Le Francois v.
Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1106.) The purpose of this jurisdictional bar
is to protect the Court from repetitive motions. (Ibid.) Also, the
statute requires the moving party “to show a satisfactory explanation for
failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a
strict requirement of diligence” the purpose of which is to incentivize parties
“to efficiently marshall their evidence.” (Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America
(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199 [citing Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 674, 689-690].)
Plaintiff’s
second motion for sanctions does not comply with the above requirements. The
instant motion raises the same issues as raised in the first motion for
sanctions. Yet Plaintiff does not explain what new or different facts,
circumstances, or law exist that warrant the court’s consideration of this
renewed motion. Nor does Plaintiff support the second motion with a declaration
showing the previous order, by which judge it was made, and what new or
different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to exist.
Finally, to the extent the Motion is based on Plaintiff’s
contention that Defendant’s refusal to produce documents sought via subpoenas,
requests for production, and requests for inspection of documents, it fails to
demonstrate that Defendant’s objections are improper. Instead of bringing the
motion pursuant to the provisions of the Discovery Code, the Motion is brought
under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 for delay and harassment. Plaintiff
has not demonstrated delay and harassment because the Motion does not
coherently address what discovery was requested and Defendant’s responses.
Instead, it broadly asserts that Plaintiff issued ten subpoenas, two requests
for production, two requests for inspection of documents but Defendant has
produced no documents. The Court cannot parse these multiple discovery sets and
responses to evaluate each method of discovery employed, and the propriety, or
lack thereof, of Defendant’s responses. The only discovery statute cited is
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090, which applies to a demand for initial
disclosure. Plaintiff, however, does not contend that any such demand was
served on Defendant, making this statute inapplicable.
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiff Vardan Antonyan’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.