Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STUD05423, Date: 2024-07-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STUD05423    Hearing Date: July 22, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 15, 2024, this action was reclassified from Civil Limited to Civil Unlimited and reassigned to Department 48.

On May 29, 2024, the Court set a jury trial for June 17, 2024, and the Court gave notice the next day.

On June 17, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff Bravhart LP appeared ready for trial.  Counsel for Defendant David Blair Shotts appeared telephonically from her vacation in Florida.  (Semerjian Decl. ¶ 8.)  The Court and counsel conferred on trial readiness, and the case was not yet ready to commence for trial.  The Court continued the trial date and scheduled a Final Status Conference (“FSC”).  The Court also signed and filed a Trial Preparation Order, and it ordered the parties to comply with its terms.

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant.

On July 15, 2024, the Court advanced Plaintiff’s sanctions motion and continued the FSC to July 22, 2024.

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s jury demand or, in the alternative, for monetary sanctions due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s Standing Order and failing to appear trial-ready on June 17, 2024.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the Court’s First Amended Standing Order dated March 2, 2018.  The effective version, however, is the Fifth Amended Standing Order dated June 1, 2021.  The relevant provisions were not affected by the subsequent amendments.

The Court may impose penalties, including monetary sanctions, for failure to comply with the Rules of Court or local rules.  (California Rules of Court, rule 2.30; Code Civ. Proc., § 575.2.)

Parties in an unlawful detainer action “should be ready to go to trial on the day of trial.”  (General Order No. 2021-SJ-007-01, at ¶ 14.)  ‘[P]arties who appear on the day of trial and are not ready to try their case or parties who announce ‘trial-ready’ but are not prepared to immediately try a case are not acting in compliance with the Standing Order, regardless of whether the parties’ attorneys are appearing on behalf of other litigants in different actions on the same day.”  (Ibid.)  “Failure to comply with any provisions of [the] Standing Order without substantial justification may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions, evidentiary and/or issue preclusion, or terminating sanctions.”  (Id. at ¶ 17.)  Defendant was not ready to try the case on the date of the trial, so sanctions are warranted.

Defendant did not file an opposition to the motion, but Defendant’s counsel did file a declaration on July 15, 2024.  Defendant’s counsel explains that the jury trial was “during a time when defense counsel was in the middle of a pre-paid vacation.”  (Cole Decl. ¶ 6.)  Defendant’s counsel never moved to continue the trial date, despite knowledge of her unavailability.  On the day of trial, Defendant was represented by Karapet Semerjian, who appeared remotely.[1]  (Cole Decl. ¶ 6.)

Based on the lack of opposition to the motion and counsel’s meager declaration filed before the July 15, 2024 FSC, the Court finds that Defendant’s failure to appear trial-ready on June 17, 2024 was a violation of the Standing Order without substantial justification.

Defendant’s counsel’s declaration also states that she was surprised to receive notice of this motion, and “Plaintiff’s counsel has not even served the trial preparation order.”  (Cole Decl. ¶ 11.)  Defendant’s counsel asks the Court to order Plaintiff’s counsel to “pay for the time spent searching for the trial preparation order,” which consisted of “one and a half hours searching my office for the trial preparation order.”  (Cole Decl. ¶ 14.)  Plaintiff was not ordered to give notice of the Trial Preparation Order.  It is the parties’ responsibility to retrieve the Trial Preparation Order after it is entered.  Even before the Trial Preparation Order is entered, parties may view the basic form of the Order as Exhibit B of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website, www.lacourt.org).  Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant’s counsel is ORDERED to pay sanctions of $1,343.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days.

The Jury Trial remains scheduled for July 29, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.  If any party is not prepared for trial on that date, the Court may construe that unreadiness as a waiver of their demand for a jury.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 22nd day of July 2024