Case Number: 18STCV08350 Hearing Date: August 21, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STEVEN BEAUCHMAN,

Defendant.

CROSS-COMPLAINT

CASE NO: 18STCV08350

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER CCP SECTION 128.5

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

August 21, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Manouk Mesropyan and Galina Sargsyan filed this action on December 13, 2018 against Defendant Steven Beauchman for damages arising out of an alleged vehicle collision on March 18, 2017. Defendant was allegedly driving a motorcycle owned by Alvaro Lainez with his permission when he crashed into Plaintiff Mesropyan. Thus, Plaintiff Mesropyan brings a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence based on the resulting injuries. Plaintiff Sargsyan, Mesropyan’s wife, brings a cause of action for loss of consortium.

On April 23, 2019, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Lainez for equitable indemnification and contribution and declaratory relief.

DISCUSSION

Defendant now moves for monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. Defendant alternatively requests that the court strike the complaint. Plaintiffs oppose. Defendant reply.

Background Law

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(a).) “Actions or tactics” include filing and service of a complaint. (Id. at subd. (b)(1).) “Frivolous” means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party. (Id. at subd. (b)(2).)

The proof requirements on a motion for sanctions under CCP section 128.5 are high. (Luke v. Baldwin-United Corp. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 664, 669 [holding that sanctions should be imposed only for the “most egregious conduct” and in the “clearest of cases.”].) The moving party has the initial burden of proof on a motion for sanctions. (Evid. Code, § 500.) Unless there is good cause, the moving party must meet its burden through evidence.

Analysis

Here, Defendant’s argument relies entirely on a release executed by Plaintiff Mesropyan. Defendant contends that Plaintiff Mesropyan executed a release in connection with the alleged March 2017 vehicle collision before this lawsuit was filed and contends the release bars this entire lawsuit. Therefore, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ filing and serving this lawsuit was frivolous and solely intended to harass Defendant.

The court cannot find that Defendant meets his burden because he did not properly attach the release agreement to the moving papers. The declaration of Beaton purports to attach the declaration as Exhibit 1, but Defendant instead filed the release under seal. However, there is no motion to seal ruled upon or pending in connection with the release record. Without the release included in the moving papers and keeping in mind that the release underpins Defendant’s entire argument, the court cannot find that Defendant meets his burden to show the filing and maintaining this lawsuit is frivolous and intended solely to harass.

Therefore, the motion is denied.

In the opposition papers, Plaintiffs attach a release signed by Plaintiff Mesropyan that was made vis-à-vis AAA insurance. (Aghabegian Decl. Exh. I.) The court would need to assume this was the release mentioned in the moving papers. Although, the reply papers suggest the released attached in the opposition papers as exhibit I is the correct release. But, Defendant nevertheless does not persuasively show that the release bars this lawsuit against him. The release appears to be between Plaintiff Mesropyan and AAA insurance. At best, there is minimal ambiguity as to whether the release applies to Defendant. This evidence is insufficient to show that the filing and service of the complaint was totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party. Thus, Defendant would not meet the standard section 128.5 sanctions.

Therefore, even if the court considered whether the release attached to the opposition papers bars this lawsuit and whether that release is grounds for section 128.5 sanctions, the court would not find that it does. Accordingly, the court would deny the motion.

Conclusion

The motion for sanctions under section 128.5 is denied. Defendant is ordered to give notice.