Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00965, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00965    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

         Defendant Loretta Wan (“Defendant”) seeks monetary sanctions against plaintiff B-K Alhambra Property, LLC (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $2,500 and a dismissal of the Complaint due to a bankruptcy court’s order of discharge dated December 23, 2024.

          Defendant argues that the bankruptcy court’s discharge prevents Plaintiff from proceeding against her in this action and that Plaintiff has refused and ignored Defendant’s requests to dismiss the action. Defendant characterizes Plaintiff’s failure to dismiss its claims as a “bad-faith tactic” and requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5.

          Plaintiff filed a brief on March 27, 2025, opposing Defendant’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to dismiss; therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

With respect to Defendant’s request for sanctions, Plaintiff argues that sanctions should not be imposed because there is no evidence of bad faith.  Defense counsel sent a letter demanding a dismissal in late December 2024, but when Plaintiff’s counsel telephoned defense counsel on January 8, 2025, he left a message and did not receive a return call. (Opp., Talt Decl., ¶ 2.) Later, in an email dated February 24, 2025, defense counsel again demanded a dismissal, advised that a motion would be filed, and requested to meet and confer. (Opp., Talt Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel that he was out of the country in Argentina’s Patagonia region and would be returning on March 13, 2025. (Ibid.) Defense counsel then proceeded to file this motion on March 3, 2025. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares he has not done anything to intentionally delay the discharge and did not file the request for dismissal because he was not sure whether an actual dismissal would need to be filed or whether a discharge order acted as a dismissal. (Id., ¶ 4.) Based on the foregoing, as well as Defendant’s failure to file a reply brief, the Court finds that sanctions are unwarranted under section 128.5.

Dated this 10th day of April 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.