Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1177859, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Kimberly Faith Strong’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Sanctions (“Motion”) against plaintiff Van Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED.

Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b) sets forth certain requirements of declarations filed with the court, specifically that 1) pleadings are not presented primarily for an improper purpose; 2) claims are warranted and nonfrivolous; and 3) the allegations and factual contentions have evidentiary support.

Defendant filed the present Motion on the basis that Plaintiff has made several false statements in declarations that were filed with the court in support of the various demurrers filed against Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint.  (RAO ##28, 30.)  Specifically, Defendant argued Plaintiff was given only one extension of time to file a demurrer and that the deadline was 07/28/21. (Valenti Decl., Ex. D.)  Instead of filing the demurrer by that time, Plaintiff did not file a demurrer until 12/14/21.  (ROA #28.)

In filing the 12/14/21 demurrer, Plaintiff submitted a declaration that was misleading in that it only states defense counsel agreed to an extension of time for a reply to the answer to be filed.  (ROA #28 at ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff omitted the extension at issue expired on 07/28/21.  Plaintiff then falsely stated the court had allowed Plaintiff to re-submit the demurrer due to Plaintiff erroneously (and allegedly) filing her original demurrer in the incorrect department.  Nothing in the clerk’s Notice to Filing Party (“Notice”) filed on 08/03/21 states Plaintiff was given leave to re-file the demurrer, let alone that Plaintiff was given over four-months of time to re-file her demurrer on 12/14/21.  (ROA #26.)

Despite being notified multiple times by Defendant that the deadline to file a demurrer had passed, that no extension to file would or could be granted, and that the demurrer should be withdrawn, Plaintiff refused to withdraw the 12/14/21 demurrer.  (Valenti Decl., Exs. B, D, E.)  Instead, Plaintiff continued to request extensions of time to re-file the demurrer and then did re-file on 04/21/22.  (Valenti Decl., Exs. E, G; and ROA ##30, 33.) 

With the 04/21/22 demurrer, Plaintiff submitted a new declaration, which not only restated the above misleading and false statements, but also provided an additional false statement that on 03/25/22, Defendant had permitted Plaintiff to re-file the demurrer.  (ROA #33.)  Defendant produced multiple communications again notifying Plaintiff that no extension would or could be provided, and correcting Plaintiff when she sent an email falsely stating defense counsel had provided leave.  (Valenti Decl., Exs. D, E, G, H, I.)  

The above false and misleading statements are improper.  The demurrers were filed well past the deadlines with no extension of time being given and thus were in violation of Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).  Monetary sanctions are therefore warranted to deter repetition of Plaintiff’s conduct.  (Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(d).  Defendant has requested $1,400 in monetary sanctions which comes from a very reasonable $200 hourly billing rate and seven hours spent or estimated to be spent by defense counsel on both the present Motion and in opposing the improperly filed demurrer.  The court finds the total requested amount reasonable but will add the $60 motion filing fee as cost related to this Motion could have been avoided had Plaintiff not provided false and misleading statements.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,460 are awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.  Sanctions are due within 15-day’s written notice of this ruling.

Defendant to give notice.