Case Number: TC028972 Hearing Date: June 14, 2018 Dept: A

# 8. David Daryl Jones v. K&R Towing

Case No.: TC028972

Matter on calendar for: Hearing on motion for sanctions for excessive pleadings, violation of CCP § 128.7(b), (1), (2), and (3).

Tentative ruling:

I. Background

The Court entered default against Defendant K&R Towing on February 7, 2018. The form Complaint alleges, in pertinent part: “[M]y 2013 Chevy Cruze, was removed from my home in Carson, California, and taken to Bakersfield, California wherein the incident occurred… Defendant… interrupted my efforts to attain relief from the colluding actions of the car dealer and lender for my purchase of my 2013 Chevy Cruze car.” No other facts are alleged. Plaintiff requests $30,000 in damages.

On March 20, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to set aside default and motion to change venue without prejudice. (See March 20, 2018 Minute Order.)

On May 8, 2018, on Defendant’s revised motions to set aside default and change of venue, the Court granted the motion to set aside default and denied the motion to change venue, without prejudice. The accompany requests for sanctions were denied.

Plaintiff, pro per, now asks for sanctions under CCP § 128.7(b) for excessive unnecessary filings. Plaintiff asks for $1,000. Defendant, in turn, asks Plaintiff to be sanctioned at $875 plus the $86 court call charge. There is a CMC hearing set for 7/18/18.

II. Standard

CCP § 128(b) states that by signing each submission to the court, a party is certifying that the following conditions are met:

(1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery

(CCP § 128(b)(1–3).)

III. Analysis

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s latest motions, addressed at the May 8, 2018 hearing, were unnecessary. The Court granted the motion to set aside default, and denied the motion for change of venue without prejudice and denied defendant’s motions for sanctions.

Defendants argue that its motions were necessary and its claims are meritorious. Defendant then requests sanctions applied to Plaintiff equal to the cost of Defendant’s opposition.

The motions, evaluated by the Court, did not violate CCP § 128(b). The motions were not submitted for an improper purpose, were warranted (evidenced by one being granted and the other denied without prejudice), and had sufficient evidentiary support for this stage in proceedings. Sanctions are therefore inappropriate.

IV. Ruling

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and denies Defendant’s request for sanctions.

Next dates: Case management conference 7/18/18