Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records we believe defendant is represented by attorney Matthew Trostler. Note that below is a tentative ruling. Lawzilla believes that for the sanctions motion the sanctions amount was reduced to $750 in the final ruling.

Case Number: BC503860 Hearing Date: April 08, 2014 Dept: 91

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendants, SJC Illinois LLC, dba The Pony (Doe 1) and 2800 Walnut, LLC dba Fantasy Castle (Doe 3) is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.

The same general rules that apply to demurrers apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court’s task is to determine whether the First Amended Complaint states a cause of action. Ludgate v. Lockheed 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 602 (2000).

Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to support a duty owed by the demurring parties (hereafter “LLCs”). The LLCs were named as Doe Defendants 1 and 3 on 12/24/13. Plaintiffs have specifically alleged an alter ego relationship between Defendant Westlund and Gold Club and Defendant Westlund and 1612 PCH, but not between Westlund and any other Doe Defendant. FAC ¶ 7.

Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts applicable to the Doe Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that PCH 1612 owned/rented/managed the premises, while Gold Club leased the premises. FAC ¶ 9, 11. No facts are alleged as against Does. Plaintiffs assert in their opposition that the LLCs are liable on a “single-enterprise” theory. There are no facts alleged to support that the Does were liable for this incident on any theory.

Leave to amend is proper where Plaintiffs have not had a fair opportunity to amend, and the defect is capable of being cured. Colvig v. RKO Gen., 232 Cal. App. 2d 56, 69 70 (1965).

The Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Procedure § 128.5 and 128.7 by Defendants, SJC Illinois LLC, dba The Pony (Doe 1) and 2800 Walnut, LLC dba Fantasy Castle (Doe 3), filed on 3/7/14 is DENIED.

Contrary to Defendants’ argument in Reply, the motion is expressly based on Cal Code Civ Procedure 128.7 as well as § 128.5 as stated in the caption of the motion and the notice. To the extent it is based on section 128.7, the motion is DENIED as Defendants did not comply with the “safe harbor” rule. The motion is required to be served first on opposing parties, and then filed 21 days later, assuming the challenged pleading has not been withdrawn. Cal Code Civ Proc § 128.7(c)(1). Defendants served and filed the motion on the same date – 3/7/14.

Defendants are not entitled to sanctions under Cal Code Civ Procedure § 128.5 because that statute expressly applies only to pre-1994 “actions or tactics.” Cal Code Civ Proc § 128.5 (b)(1). The California Supreme Court defined a clear end to the application of CCP Section 128.5 sanctions, concluding that “the statutory language of section 128.5 and related statutes, and other indicia of legislative intent, establish that section 128.5 does not apply to conduct arising from a claim initiated after December 31, 1994. To the extent the Court of Appeal reached a contrary result, its judgment must be reversed.” Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 804, 807.

Sanctions of $1,687.50 against Defendants and their counsel are warranted under Section 128.7(c)(1)for presenting their motion without complying with the “safe harbor” requirements of statute.