Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV16770, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV16770 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendant's Motion
for Terminating Sanctions
Defendant's Motion
for Terminating Sanctions is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Maxim Ignatenko (Ignatenko) and Irina Konkordina (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Monette Dubin (Defendant).
On February 25, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s two Motions
to Compel Discovery and ordered Ignatenko to provide verified responses to Form
and Special Interrogatories without objections by March 11, 2025. The Court
also imposed monetary sanctions of $760.00 per motion against Ignatenko and Ignatenko’s
counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Defendant’s counsel.
On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed
a Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Ignatenko.
Ignatenko did not file an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 authorizes
the court to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the
discovery process. Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond
to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide
discovery. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g). A court may impose
terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of
discovery, by staying further proceedings by that party until an order for
discovery is obeyed, by dismissing the action of that party, or by entering a
default judgment against that party. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).
Before imposing terminating sanctions,
the court should consider the “totality of the circumstances”, including “the conduct
of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the detriment to the
propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain
discovery.” Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246. “‘If a
lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted:
continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher
sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.’” Van
Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516 (quoting Doppes v.
Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992) (internal quotation
marks omitted). However, “unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not
an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction authorized
by subdivision (d) of section 2034.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 787 (Deyo) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Before imposing sanctions, the court must make an express finding
that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required
answers. Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246
Cal.App.2d 113, 118. “Lack of diligence may be deemed willful in the sense that
the party understood his obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to
comply. Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787 (citing Fred
Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d
605, 610-611. “[T]he party on whom [discovery requests] were served has the
burden of showing that the failure was not willful. Id. at p. 788.
ANALYSIS
I. Terminating Sanctions
Plaintiff requests a terminating sanction against Ignatenko
and Plaintiffs’ attorney of record, George K. Jawalkian, dismissing this
action.
Ignatenko did not obey the Court’s February 25, 2025, order
to provide verified responses and production by March 11, 2025. Hemati Decl., ¶¶
3, 6, Ex. A. Because Ignatenko did not file an opposition, he has not met his
burden of showing his failure to comply was not willful. Therefore, the Court
finds that Ignatenko willfully disobeyed its order. Moreover, the Court
interprets Ignatenko’s failure to oppose the motion as consent to the Court
granting the motion. See Cal Rules of Court, Rule 8.54
II. Monetary Sanctions
Defendant requests a monetary sanction of $869.95 to be paid
to Defendant and her attorney of record, and an additional monetary sanction of
$1,500 to be paid to the county.
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one
engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that
conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct…. If a monetary sanction is
authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction
unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to
interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling
answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition
of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under
Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that
sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010).” Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290
“A judicial officer shall have the power to impose
reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any
violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or
substantial justification.” Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5
Defendant’s requested $869.95 monetary sanction is based on
the $69.95 cost of filing this motion and four hours of attorney work at $200
per hour. Hemati Decl. ¶ 7. Defendant’s counsel reports spending two hours
preparing this motion and requests an additional two hours for traveling to and
attending the hearing. Because the motion is unopposed and counsel has the
option of appearing remotely, the Court reduces the requested monetary
sanctions to $469.95. The Court declines to impose additional monetary
sanctions payable to the Court.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's Motion for Terminating
Sanctions is granted against Ignatenko. The Complaint filed on June 5,
2024, is dismissed with prejudice as to Ignatenko. Ignatenko and his attorney
of record, George K. Jawalkian, are ordered to pay Defendant and Defendant’s
counsel $469.95.