Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendant is represented by attorney Richard Rosiak. Plaintiff is represented by attorney Steve Lopez.

Case Number: VC065840 Hearing Date: April 26, 2018 Dept: SEC

LE v. SOLORIO

CASE NO.: VC065840

HEARING: 04/26/18

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant HENLEY H. LE’s request for CCP §128.5 sanctions is GRANTED. CCP §128.5

Moving Party to give Notice.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant ALFRED SOLORIO and his counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant HENLEY H. LE and his counsel of record, fees in the total amount of $810.00 ($375/hr. x 2 hrs.) + ($60 filing fee) within 15 days of the date of this hearing.

Le requests sanctions against Solorio and Solorio’s former attorney, Mr. Rosiak, for the “frivolous” filing of Solorio’s procedurally improper First Amended Cross Complaint pursuant to CCP §128.5.

CCP §128.5 provides: “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 actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (emphasis added) (CCP §128.5(a), (f)(1)(A).)

The relevant facts are as follows: in August 2016, Defendant/Cross-Complainant ALFRED SOLORIO (“Solorio”) (in pro per) entered into a Residential Purchase Agreement with Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant HENLEY LE (“Le”). Allegedly, Solorio attempted to cancel the RPA with Le. On October 3, 2016, Le filed suit against Solorio for specific performance of the RPA. On May 11, 2017, Solorio filed a Cross-Complaint against Le and Cross-Defendant STEVE LOPEZ (Le’s attorney) (collectively “Cross-Defendants”). Solorio’s Initial Cross-Complaint contained the following causes of action against the Cross-Defendants/Moving Parties: (1) Indemnity; (2) Equitable Contribution; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Abuse of Process and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (5) Slander of Title. On August 4, 2017, this Court granted Cross-Defendants special motion to strike Solorio’s Cross-Complaint as to the Abuse of Process and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Slander of Title causes of action, and sustained the demurrer to Solorio’s Cross-Complaint with 20 days leave to amend the claims asserted in the Cross-Complaint.

On August 24, 2017, Solorio filed his First Amended Cross Complaint, which asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Slander of Title; (3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (4) Declaratory Relief. On December 7, 2017, Le demurred to Solorio’s First Amended Cross Complaint on the basis that Solorio failed to obtain leave of Court prior to adding four new causes of action to his then-operative pleading. Le’s demurrer to the First Amended Cross Complaint was sustained without leave to amend where all of the causes of action contained in Solorio’s First Amended Cross Complaint exceeded the scope of this Court’s August 4, 2017 Order granting leave to amend. In its Order December 7, 2017, the Court states in pertinent part, “The Court did not grant Cross-Complainant leave to file additional/different causes of action from those already asserted. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Cross-Complainant can file a motion for leave to file an amended pleading in conformity with the rules of California Civil Procedure.” (Min. Order, 12/07/17.) The Court notes that Solorio did not file a motion for leave to file an amended pleading.

“‘Frivolous’ means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (CCP §128.5(b).) Based on the evidence presented, and upon review of the Court’s files pertaining to this case, the Court finds that Defendant/Cross-Complainant Solorio’s First Amended Cross Complaint was frivolously filed solely to cause unnecessary delay. Solorio acted beyond the scope of this Court’s Order granting leave to amend, and asserted procedurally improper causes of action into his pleading without leave of Court. There is no rational argument based upon the evidence or law to support the notion that Solorio acted properly in filing new causes of action without leave of Court. The motion is granted.

Lawzilla Additional Information:
This tentative ruling is not the final ruling from the court. This ruling, and page, are locked and claimed by Lawzilla are not subject to the Own the Page opportunity.