Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV33631, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33631    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Jeffrey Ito

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

Motion for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Jeffrey Ito (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against defendants Michele Morgan, Yannis Yortsos, Carol Folt, and University of Southern California (“Defendants”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, subdivision (a).  Plaintiff moves for this relief on the ground that Defendants “failed to file a timely Case Management Statement, failed to obey a scheduling order and did not participate in good faith in the Case Management Conference.”  (Notice of Motion, p. 2:8-16.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service establishing that he served the notice of motion and motion for sanctions, and supporting papers, on Defendants’ attorneys of record, as required by California Code of Procedure section 1015.

California Code of Procedure section 1015 states, in relevant part:  “in all cases where a party has an attorney in the action or proceeding, the service of papers, when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party, except service of subpoenas, of writs, and other process issued in the suit, and of papers to bring the party into contempt.” 

Here, Defendants made an appearance in this action through their attorneys of record,  Patrick E. Stockalper and Hannah R. Hogoboom of Kjar, McKenna & Stockalper, LLP, by filing a Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint on January 19, 2023.  Although Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service stating that his notice of motion and motion for sanactions, supporting memorandum, and supporting declaration were served on Defendants by mail on April 11, 2023, the Proof of Service does not state that Plaintiff served Defendants’ attorneys of record by mail or by another authorized method of service with the notice of motion and moving papers.  (Plaintiff’s Proof of Service, filed April 11, 2023.)  Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has not filed a valid Proof of Service showing that Defendants were properly served with notice of this motion and supporting papers by service on their attorneys of record.   

ORDER

The court denies plaintiff Jeffrey Ito’s motion for sanctions.

The court orders plaintiff Jeffrey Ito to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 18, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court