Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV11963, Date: 2022-08-26 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: 21STCV11963    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion for monetary sanctions against Defendants pursuant to C.C.P. §128.5 is denied.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs is denied.

Plaintiffs Eric Hosuk Yoon (“Yoon”) and Caresys, Inc. (“Caresys”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an order imposing sanctions against Defendants Cuckoo Rental America, Inc. (“CKRA”), Cuckoo Electronics America, Inc. (“CEA”), and Michael Won Jun Yi (“Yi”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the amount of $18,000 on the grounds Defendants engaged in bad faith tactics.  (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §128.5; Motion, pg. 11.)  In opposition, Defendants request monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs in the amount of $3,798.22 for fees incurred in connection with opposing the instant motion.  

Background

On March 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for sanctions.  The Court notes on that same date, Plaintiffs filed a second sanctions motion against Defendants pursuant to C.C.P. §128.7; however, on April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs withdrew the Section 128.7 motion, while the instant motion remained on calendar.  Plaintiffs assert the instant motion relates to Defendants’ November 9, 2020 demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (“FAC”) and Defendants’ failure to adhere to C.C.P. §128.5.  (Motion, pg. 4.)  On March 28, 2022, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC, with 30 days leave to amend, and on April 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their operative second amended complaint (“SAC”).  Defendants have since filed a demurrer to the SAC, which is currently set for hearing on September 15, 2022.

Monetary Sanctions for Bad Faith Tactics

C.C.P. §128.5(a) provides as follows: “A trial court may 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 bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” 

“‘Actions or tactics’ include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading. The mere filing of a complaint without service thereof on an opposing party does not constitute ‘actions or tactics’ for purposes of this section.”  (C.C.P. §128.5(b)(1).)

“‘Frivolous’ means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.”  (C.C.P. §128.5(b)(2).)  “[A] suit indisputably has no merit only ‘where any reasonable attorney would agree that the action is totally and completely without merit.’”  (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 12 (Citations Omitted).)

The Court finds monetary sanctions for bad-faith tactics are not warranted.  Defendants’ counsel did not engage in “actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay” in filing their demurrer to the FAC, which the Court sustained with leave to amend  (C.C.P. §128.5(a).)  Plaintiffs submit no evidence suggesting Defendants’ demurrer was done for an improper purpose, was the result of bad-faith actions, or amounted to a tactic that was frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.  Plaintiffs take issue the basis for Defendants’ demurrer to each of their causes of action, essentially arguing the FAC is sufficiently alleged and should withstand Defendants’ demurrer thereto.  (Motion, pgs. 5-11.)  Plaintiffs contend the Defendants’ demurrer was nothing more than an attempt to delay the instant action and the related case given their demurrer arguments lack merit and were made in bad faith with the sole intent of causing delay.  (Motion, pg. 5.) However, this argument is conclusory and unsupported by evidence.

Plaintiffs’ only evidence with respect to the conduct Defendants’ demurrer is a single line from the Declaration of Jay Hong (“Hong”), in which Hong asserts Plaintiffs advised Defendants’ counsel to withdraw the pending demurrer for improper tactics on February 21, 2022, prior to filing the motion on March 20, 2022.  (Decl. of Hong ¶7.)  However, this is not competent evidence that the at-issue demurrer amounted to a bad-faith tactic solely intended to cause delay.

In opposition, Defendants request the Court award sanctions against Plaintiffs for frivolously filing the instant motion pursuant to C.C.P. §128.5(f)(1)(c).  (Opposition, pg. 5.)  However, notwithstanding the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court declines to award Defendants monetary sanctions as it finds the sanctions are not warranted. 

          Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against Defendants is denied. 

          Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs is denied.

Dated: August_____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court