2015-00174009-CU-MC

Valeriy Popov vs. Liliya Perehon

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions

Filed By: Perehon, Liliya

Self-represented Defendant Liliya Peterson’s unopposed motion for monetary sanctions is denied.

This case arises from a romantic relationship between pro per Plaintiff Valeriy Popov (“Valeriy”) and pro per Defendant Liliya Perehon (“Liliya”). Valeriy and Liliya were involved in a relationship for approximately seven years. On or about March 14, 2012, Valeriy and Defendant Yevgeniy Peregon aka Eugene Peregon’s, Liliya’s son, jointly purchased real property located at 3505 Lindenwood Way, Sacramento, California (the “Real Property”). Valeriy and Liliya lived at the Real Property until their relationship ended.

The Court previously granted Defendant Eugene Peregon’s motion for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with multiple discovery orders. On December 5, 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions. In that ruling, the Court denied Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. The Court noted that Defendant’s request for sanctions was not a request for costs incurred in connection with the motion for terminating sanctions but instead is a request for damages from Plaintiff based on money that she lent to Plaintiff at various times, totaling approximately $46,000. The Court ruled that it could not grant a request for “damages” on a motion for terminating sanctions directed to Plaintiff’s complaint.

Defendant has now simply re-filed the request for monetary sanctions. The caption of the motion is based on “monetary sanction” against plaintiff. Again, the request for “sanctions” is not in reality a request for any type of sanction, but rather is a request for

damages from Plaintiff based on money that she lent to Plaintiff at various times totaling approximately $46,000. Defendant cites no authority for the instant motion. Importantly, the Court must note that Defendant has no cross-complaint on file pursuant to which she would be entitled to even seek damages from Plaintiff, much less recover “damages” on such a sanctions motion. Indeed, under CCP § 2023.030 the court may impose, among other things, a monetary sanction against any party engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. It is not intended to be a substitute for a complaint or cross-complaint alleging damages and proving those damages to a trier of fact.

There is no legal basis for the instant motion and it is denied.