Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV04645, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04645    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

March 15, 2023

CASE NUMBER

21STCV04645

MOTION

Motion for Sanctions

MOVING PARTIES

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

 

              Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, Defendants) move for the Court to impose sanctions against Plaintiff’s Counsel for purported ongoing prosecution of a claim that is clearly time barred, was properly dismissed for failure to prosecute and for the inappropriate effort to rely on Code of Civil Procedure section 473 relief to set aside the dismissal.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

 

            Preliminarily, the Court notes, as it did in its January 30, 2023 order regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Defendants lack standing to bring a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff and the issues raised in Defendants’ motion for sanction are not ripe.[1]  Primarily, Defendants have not filed answers to the complaint or made other general/formal appearances in the action.  Therefore, the Court finds the issue of whether Plaintiff’s Counsel has participated in sanctionable conduct is nonjusticiable as to Defendants. 

 

            Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion.  The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 

 

 


[1] “The concept of justiciability involves the intertwined criteria of ripeness and standing. Standing derives from the principle that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.  A party lacks standing if it does not have an actual and substantial interest in, or would not be benefited or harmed by, the ultimate outcome of an action.  Standing is a function not just of a party's stake in a case, but the degree of vigor or intensity with which the presents its arguments. Ripeness refers to the requirements of a current controversy. According to the Supreme Court, an action not founded upon an actual controversy between the parties to it, and brought for the purpose of securing a determination of a point of law will not be entertained. A controversy becomes ripe once it reaches, but has not passed, the point that the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made.”  (City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 59 [cleaned up].)