Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC715084, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC715084    Hearing Date: April 10, 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

            Plaintiff Eduardo Saldivar (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Aekawin Vongasavarit (Defendant) based on injuries Plaintiff purportedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision.  On October 13, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s physical examination and request for monetary sanctions.  As such, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for physical examination and ordered Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,335 to Defendant.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have yet to pay the outstanding monetary sanctions.  

            Here, Defendant moves the Court for an entry of judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $3,335.  Defendant further moves for an award of additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $585 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.

            First, the Court determines that Defendant’s request for entry of judgment at this stage of the action would violate the “one judgment rule.”  In addition, the Court notes that the trial on the underlying complaint is set for July 27, 2023.   

            “The one judgment rule has been articulated thusly:  As a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action.  A final, ordinarily single, judgment is a prerequisite to appealing from an action, its purpose to avoid piecemeal appeals.”  (Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60 [cleaned up]; see also (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 8:2040 (hereafter Weil & Brown) [“Monetary sanctions orders are immediately appealable only if the amount exceeds $5,000. Lesser sanctions orders are appealable only after final judgment in the main action, or if the sanctioned counsel is no longer counsel of record in the action; otherwise, the order is reviewable only by writ”].)  Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s request for an entry of judgment.  (See Weil & Brown, ¶ 8:2031 [“Sanctions orders are enforceable as money judgments unless the court orders otherwise”].) 

            Second, the Court concludes that the authority cited (California Rules of Court, rule 2.30) in support of Defendant’s request for additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $585 is unsound.  In particular, the Court finds that Rule 2.30 does not empower the Court to impose monetary sanctions under the present procedural context.  Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. 

            Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.