Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV31305, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 19STCV31305    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Western Asset Management’s motion for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Jennifer Hua and her counsel of record is denied.

The unredacted version of the Declaration of Tamara Freeze, filed on September 14, 2022, is struck from the record.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is denied.

Defendant Western Asset Management Company, LLC (“WAM”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Jennifer Hua (“Hua”) (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $603,515.00 in attorney fees for this matter, plus any additional fees incurred between July 27, 2022, and the time of this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”).  (Amended Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§128.5 and 128.7.) 

Evidentiary Objections

Defendant’s 9/20/22 evidentiary objections to the declaration of Tamara Freeze (“Freeze”) are moot in light of the Court’s ruling.  In light of the filing of the redacted declaration on September 19, 2022, the Court orders the unredacted version, filed on September 14, 2022 struck from the record. 

Background

On March 3, 2022, Defendant filed its MSJ on all of Plaintiff’s causes of action.  On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed her opposition.  Defendant filed the instant motion on August 19, 2022, in response to Plaintiff’s “frivolous causes of action and . . . refusal to voluntarily dismiss [her] claims.”   (Amended Motion, pg. 2.)  Defendant filed the operative amended motion on August 22, 2022, after an earlier hearing date became available on this Court’s calendar.  (Amended Motion, pg. 2 & n.1.)  On September 13, 2022, this Court made its final ruling on Defendant’s MSJ, granting summary adjudication as to the 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 10th causes of action in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”), and denying summary adjudication as to the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th, and 12th causes of action and as to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.  On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff requested Defendant withdraw the instant motion, which Defendant’s counsel refused and informed Plaintiff’s counsel that “[Defendant] will be filing a motion for attorney fees against [Plaintiff] based on the claims she dismissed with prejudice under FEHA.”  (Decl. of Freeze ¶11, Exh. J.)

Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions

C.C.P. §128.5 authorizes a court to order “a party, the party’s attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  (C.C.P. §128.5(a).)  “Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.”  (C.C.P. §128.5(f)(1)(C).)  Under this section, “‘actions or tactics’ include, but are not limited to, . . . the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading.”   (C.C.P. §128.5(b)(1).)  “Frivolous” is also defined under this statute as “totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (C.C.P. §128.5(b)(2).)

C.C.P. §128.7 authorizes sanctions against a party and his counsel for submitting a court filing or advocating to the court regarding such a filing, where the allegations in the filing lack evidentiary support, or the denials of factual contentions are not warranted by the evidence. (C.C.P. §128.7(a)-(b).)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s FAC violates C.C.P. §§128.5 and 128.7 by alleging claims for retaliation (2nd, 6th, and 7th COAs), wrongful termination (11th COA), unlawful prohibition on discussion of wages and working conditions (10th COA), and unlawful business practices (12th COA), and based on Plaintiff’s violation of WAM’s Confidentiality Policy, there is no factual support for the allegations supporting Plaintiff’s causes of action and are therefore frivolous and subject to sanctions.  (Amended Motion, pgs. 6-7.)

Defendant is not entitled to monetary sanctions.  This Court determined on September 13, 2022, that Plaintiff’s 1^st (violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), Labor Code §1197.5), 2^nd (retaliation in violation of the EPA), 5th (retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 6^th (whistleblower retaliation – Labor Code §1102.5), 7^th (retaliation – Labor Code §98.6), 8^th (failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation – FEHA), 11^th (wrongful termination in violation of public policy), and 12th (violation of Business & Professions Code §17200) causes of action present triable issues of fact.  The Court granted summary adjudication as to the 3rd (sex discrimination), 4th (race and ancestry discrimination), 9th (failure to pay earned wages) and 10th (unlawful prohibition on discussing wages) causes of action.  As to the 3^rd  causes of action, the Court found that although Plaintiff submitted evidence on these causes of action, the evidence did not create triable issues of fact.  The Plaintiff withdrew her 4^th cause of action in opposition. The Court granted summary adjudication of the 9^th and 10^th causes of action as Plaintiff did not address them in opposition.  The Court did not conclude that the 9^th or 10^th cause of action was frivolous.  As to the 3^rd, 4^th 9^th and 10^th causes of action, the Court does not find that they are frivolous, i.e.,“totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” Moreover, Defendant’s instant motion appears to inappropriately request this Court to adjudicate its MSJ a second time in the form of a motion for sanctions.  (See e.g., Reply, pgs. 8-12.)

          Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions

In opposition, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $25,800 pursuant to C.C.P. § 128.5(g).  A motion for sanctions brought “primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation,” may itself be subject to a sanctions motion.  (C.C.P. §128.5(g).) However, Plaintiff provides no authority for the Court awarding such sanctions absent a motion.

Dated:  October _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court