Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC07544, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07544    Hearing Date: August 8, 2024    Dept: 26

Lopez v. LKQ Corp., et al

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Filemon R. Lopez’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff Filemon R. Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against “LKQ Corporation Pick Your Own Parts Auto Wrecking” alleging wrongful termination. Defendant LKQ Corporation (“Defendant LKQ”) filed an Answer to the Complaint on February 13, 2024.

On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Sanctions. Defendant LKQ filed an opposing declaration on July 29, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s moving papers do not provide the Court with a sufficient legal basis or relevant authority to sanction Defendant. Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 specifically provides that the notice of a motion “must state … the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.) Additionally, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a) provides that a notice of motion, “must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a).) Plaintiff’s papers cite no legal authority that gives the Court the authority to issue sanctions.

Furthermore, “[t]he memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(b).) Indeed, Plaintiff’s failure to provide a memorandum as required by the Rule is an “admission that the [request] is without merit and cause for its denial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a), (b); In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 976.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Filemon R. Lopez’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.