Gonzalez v. FCA US, LLC

Attorney Tianyu Ju is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

2. U.S. Technical Consultants, Inc. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 25-1530391 (Continued) 3. Gonzalez v. FCA US, LLC 23-1337669 Before the Court is an unopposed motion for sanctions filed by defendants FCA US, LLC and Orange Coast Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Fiat against counsel for Plaintiffs, Strategic Legal Practice, APC, in the amount of $7,124. For the reasons set forth below the motion is GRANTED.

“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 of Civ. Proc. § 128.5, subd. (a).) Sanctions may also be imposed for violation of local court rules, including ordering counsel or a party to pay to the moving party reasonable attorney fees incurred in making and/or appearing at the hearing on the motion. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 575.2; OCSC Local Rule 318.) Lastly, monetary sanctions may be imposed against a party or counsel, or both, for failure to comply with California Rules of Court pretrial and trial rules. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.30(b).)

Here, Defendants have shown (as do court records) that Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly failed to appear ready for trial or failed to appear for trial altogether in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a) and causing unnecessary delay. Plaintiffs’ counsel has also failed to timely prepare, exchange, and submit required trial documents under Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 317, and failed to communicate with defense counsel in preparing trial documents or otherwise taking steps to comply with the court’s trialsetting orders. (Declaration of Michelle R. Prescott ¶¶ 4-30, 32.) The Court therefore awards sanctions in favor of Defendants and against Strategic Legal Practice APC in the amount of $7,124, which the Court finds reasonable and reasonably incurred as a result of the misconduct.

Counsel for Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.

4. Potter v. Gustafson 26-1554580 (Continued) 5. Anabi Oil Corporation v. TTV Corp 26-1554180 Before the Court is a motion by Defendants TTV Corp., Thach Vo and Truc Tran (collectively, TTV) in which they seek leave to file a crosscomplaint. The motion is GRANTED.