Tuesday, December 30, 2025
Page 1
C.A. Imposes $3,000 Sanction for False Notice of Settlement, Other Breach of Duties
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday imposed a $3,000 sanction on the Santa Monica law firm of Laurel Employment Law, APC based on it having advised the court that a settlement had been reached when it hadn’t been, causing a scheduled oral argument to be cancelled, not responding to an order to show cause re sanctions, and its two lawyers with knowledge of the matter failing to appear at the hearing.
“This opinion serves as notice to counsel that the matter of the sanctions imposed has been referred to the State Bar,” Justice Truc T. Do wrote.
The opinion was not certified for publication.
Laurel represented the plaintiffs who are present and past employees seeking to invalidate a non-competition clause in their employment contracts with defendant Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and others. A Nov. 7, 2025 notice of settlement was signed by Michiko M. Vartanian, then an attorney with Laurel, now an associate at the Burbank firm of Abramson Labor Group.
In fact, there had been a tentative settlement but the lead plaintiff would not sign the proposed settlement agreement and efforts to resolve the matter fizzled.
The same day the court cancelled the oral argument, an attorney for the defendants made it known to Div. One that there was no settlement. The next day—Nov. 18—Laurel filed an errata notice, saying there had been mix-up with internal communications.
That notice was unsigned but bore the names of Laurel attorneys Joshua I. White and Seoyoung Mia Ahn.
Ordered to Appear
Div. One set oral argument for Dec. 9, to be held contemporaneously with a hearing on sanctions. Vartanian and Salinas were ordered to appear at the hearing.
D. Joshua Salinas, a lawyer for the defendants, was present on Dec. 9; Vartanian and Salinas, weren’t. Salinas argued and the matter was taken under submission.
The defendants’ lawyer exited the courtroom. Anna Coughlin, an attorney with Laurel, arrived at about 9:45 a.m. and was allowed to respond to address the order to show cause but not to argue the merits of the appeal by the plaintiffs of a judgment of dismissal that followed Riverside Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend.
However, it turned out that Coughlin could not provide much information. She explained that Vartanian was no longer with the firm and, when asked why neither White nor Ahn was present, said they were “indisposed.”
Pressed for an explanation, she said they were in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
‘Objectively Frivolous’
In her opinion imposing the sanction, Do said:
“We conclude the notice of settlement was objectively frivolous because it was patently false. No reasonable attorney would conclude filing a notice of settlement when there is no settlement holds any value beyond (improperly) delaying the appeal. Notices of settlement should reflect that the parties have settled the case, and the appellant anticipates dismissing the appeal within 45 days, not that the parties are negotiating a settlement, or that the parties would like additional time to negotiate a settlement agreement….
“Laurel Employment Law. APC’s lack of respect for the court and the legal process was compounded by its failure to respond to the court’s order to show cause. The attorneys who filed the notice of errata, White and Aim, did not appear at the hearing or respond to the order to show cause in writing. Coughlin. who did appear in person after the matter was submitted, was unprepared to discuss the sanctions issue. Further, Laurel Employment Law. APC’s misrepresentation created confusion for the court and Defendants and their attorney, resulting in the court and Defendants’ counsel expending time and resources to address the misrepresentation.”
The jurist added:
“We also note that Laurel Employment Law. APC’s improper conduct came at a cost to Defendants, and we may compensate them for fees incurred in response to Laurel Employment Law. APC’s conduct….Accordingly, we impose additional sanctions payable to Defendants for the fees and costs associated with addressing the order to show cause re sanctions, in an amount to be determined by the trial court.”
Vartanian was not sanctioned. Do reasoned:
“Because there has been no satisfactory explanation of when Vartanian left Laurel Employment Law, APC, we are unable to determine whether Vartaman’s departure predated our order to show cause re sanctions and whether Laurel Employment Law. APC informed Vartanian of our order for her to appear in person at the hearing. Although we find Vartanian s conduct sanctionable, we discharge the order to show cause as to her individually because we cannot conclude she has received notice or an opportunity to be heard.”
Demurrer Properly Sustained
As to the merits, Do said the judgment must be affirmed, explaining:
“[T]o show standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate their legally protected interest in engaging in lawful work has been injured by the defendant. This Plaintiffs have failed to do. Their complaint does not include any facts that demonstrate Plaintiffs’ protected interests have been or are about to be harmed by Defendants. There are no allegations that former employees formed competing companies and refrained from offering jobs to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants threatened or attempted to enforce the non-solicitation agreement. And Plaintiffs do not identify any job opportunities lost because of the non- solicitation agreement.”
The case is Horton v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, D085379.
Joshua White of Laurel Employment Law, APC, joined Ahn and Coughlin in representing the plaintiffs on appeal. Timothy L. Hix and Salinas of Seyfarth Shaw acted for the defendants.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company