Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: BC706996, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC706996    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 12, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Standard General L.P., et al.

Responding Party: Former Counself for Defendants Imbar Sagi-Lebowitz

T/R:    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

           The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Standard General L.P., Standard General Master Fund, L.P., P Standard General LTD filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Dov Charney, Los Angeles Apparel Inc., Art Commerce and Manufacturing Solutions, LLC, Apex Real Estate Management LLC, Keith Fink and Apex Property Management Inc.  In 2018, the Court denied Charney and Fink’s anti-SLAPP motions and overruled their demurrers. Charney and Fink appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motions and Fink appealed the overruling of his demurrer. On May 4, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed these rulings and the stay relating to causes of action against Fink was lifted. (Standard General, L.P. v. Charney (2020) 2020 WL 2122713)

Plaintiffs assert six causes of action for actual and constructive fraudulent transfer and seek a permanent injunction. Plaintiffs are Defendant Charney’s judgment creditors. Plaintiffs allege that Charney has fraudulently transferred title and interests in his residence to other Defendants, including his attorney Defendant Fink, in order to avoid paying his judgment creditors.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The parties’ requests for judicial notice are DENIED as the Court need not take judicial notice of documents to consider them.

ANALYSIS

It is a misuse of the discovery process to fail “to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” (CCP § 2023.010(d)) or to disobey “a court order to provide discovery.”  (CCP § 2023.010(g).)  Under CCP § 2023.030, courts have the authority to issue monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, or terminating sanctions after giving parties proper notice and the opportunity to be heard.

In determining whether sanctions should be imposed, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.”  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)   “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”  (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 952, 959.)

Plaintiffs move for monetary sanctions against Defendants’ former counsel, Imbar Sagi-Lebowitz. Plaintiffs first filed this motion on January 31, 2022 and Defendants responded on March 7, 2022. Ms. Sagi-Lebowitz was relieved as counsel for Defendants on June 30, 2022. Plaintiffs filed a “renewed” notice of motion on July 15, 2022. 

Plaintiffs assert that Ms. Sagi-Lebowitz obstructed Charney’s deposition by improperly instructing Charney not to answer certain questions, improperly coaching Charney, demanding testimony be stricken, and unilaterally terminating the deposition early. Plaintiffs argue that sanctions against counsel are necessary to prevent future discovery abuses. As stated, Ms. Sagi-Lebowitz is no longer counsel for Defendants. Awarding sanctions against her would do nothing to prevent future discovery abuses in this case. The Court declines to award sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.