TERRY vs FLORES, et al.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Saul Flores’ motion for terminating and monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 is DENIED, as follows.

The moving papers do not comply with CRC Rule 2.111(3) and Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

The moving papers do not comply with CRC Rule 3.1112, specifying the documents which must be filed in support of a motion including a notice of motion, the motion itself, and a memorandum of points & authorities. Here, defendant filed only the latter memorandum of points & authorities.

24CV011507: TERRY vs FLORES, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

The moving papers do not include a notice of hearing/motion which complies with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving party to include a “Notice of Motion” which sets forth the exact nature of the relief sought and the grounds on which this relief is sought.

The moving papers also do not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and do not provide the address for the department where this matter is set to be heard.

This motion is not supported by any competent, admissible evidence and the individual requests for judicial notice found on Pages 1-7 of the moving memorandum of points & authorities fail to comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1113(l) and Rule 3.1306(c).

The opposition does not comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Factual Background

In this action commenced on 6/10/2024, plaintiff alleges that defendant Flores recorded private conversations with plaintiff and later offered them as evidence in a court hearing involving a dispute between plaintiff and defendant’s mother, with whom plaintiff was in a long-term relationship. Plaintiff alleges he has suffered emotional and economic damages as a result of defendant’s conduct.

Moving Papers. On 12/4/2024, defendant Flores (while acting in pro per) filed the present motion for terminating and monetary sanctions, claiming that plaintiff has engaged in a variety of frivolous and bad faith litigation tactics including filing this complaint “and other meritless filings against Defendant” and caused defendant to suffer emotional distress and monetary losses. In support of this motion, defendant includes on Pages 1-7 of the moving memorandum of points & authorities individual requests for judicial notice of various filings and rulings which were made in connection with other legal actions and proceedings involving plaintiff and defendant and/or his mother. Defendant seeks not only “legal consultation fees and costs” and additional monetary sanctions against plaintiff but also a terminating sanction dismissing the present complaint.

Opposition. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that this motion is improperly brought in this action insofar as this motion effectively challenges plaintiff’s actions and/or conduct in other legal proceedings and is otherwise not based on the merits of the present lawsuit.

Reply. In reply, defendant (now represented by legal counsel) maintains that plaintiff’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011507: TERRY vs FLORES, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

“bad faith litigation tactics are well-documented” and have resulted in multiple restraining orders against him, as well as the dismissal of his frivolous quiet title action. Defendant argues that because plaintiff’s legal actions have repeatedly been shown to lack merit, the sanctions requested in the present motion should be granted.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s requests for judicial notice, found on Pages 1-7 of the moving memorandum of points & authorities, of various filings and rulings made in connection with other legal actions and proceedings involving plaintiff and defendant and/or his mother is denied since defendant’s requests do not comply with CRC Rule 3.1113(l), specifying that such requests “must be made in a separate document,” or with Rule 3.1306(c), requiring the requesting party to “[s]pecify in writing the part of the court file sought to be judicially noticed.”

Additionally, even if granted, defendant’s request for judicial notice of these documents would necessarily be limited to only those purposes appropriate for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 provides in pertinent part:

(a) 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. This section also applies to judicial arbitration proceedings under Chapter 2.5 of Title 3 of Part 3. (b) For purposes of this section: (1) “Actions or tactics” include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint, cross- complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading. The mere filing of a complaint without service thereof on an opposing party does not constitute “actions or tactics” for purposes of this section. (2) “Frivolous” means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.

This motion shall be denied because defendant, as the moving party, has failed to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011507: TERRY vs FLORES, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

demonstrate that plaintiff has in this civil action taken any “actions or tactics” which may be fairly characterized as “made in bad faith, frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”

Indeed, according to the Court’s Register of Actions, plaintiff has in the present litigation effectively taken “actions or tactics” as defined under § 128.5(b)(1) which are nothing more than filing his original complaint back on 6/10/2024 and then later opposing defendant’s demurrer and defendant’s instant motion for sanctions. The opposition to defendant’s earlier demurrer cannot be found to have been in bad faith, frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay since (1) plaintiff was merely responding to defendant’s challenge to the complaint and (2) defendant’s demurrer was ultimately overruled in its entirety.

Similarly, plaintiff’s opposition to the present motion for sanctions cannot (regardless of its eventual outcome) support the imposition of any sanctions under §128.5 since (1) this opposition was filed after this motion was filed back on 12/4/2024 and (2) the moving papers did not identify this opposition as a basis for sanctions.

The only other “action” in which plaintiff has engaged in this suit is the filing of the complaint on 6/10/2024 but the moving papers here fail to competently establish that plaintiff’s complaint was filed in bad faith or is either entirely frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that defendant’s own demurrer to the complaint was overruled in its entirety on 12/17/2024 and this Court finds the moving papers’ non-compliant requests for judicial notice on Pages 1-7 of the moving memorandum of points & authorities fail to demonstrate that plaintiff’s complaint was filed in bad faith, is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. As such, defendant’s moving papers are insufficient to carry his initial burden of showing some conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the provisions of §128.5.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, defendant Flores’ motion for terminating and monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 is DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)