Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 18STCV07964, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV07964    Hearing Date: December 11, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

Defendants Athena Parking, Inc. and Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendants) moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Alexander Mota, a minor by and through his Guardian ad litem Teresa Munguia (Plaintiff) for failure to comply with discovery and the Court’s discovery order.

LEGAL STANDARD

“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose…sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2023.030.) The court may impose a terminating sanction for misuse of the discovery process by any of the following: “(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process; (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed; (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party; (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(d).)  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, or disobeying a court order to provide discovery, constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d), (g).)

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [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 the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)  

“Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly.  But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)   

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed (by striking the defendant’s Answer and subsequently granting default judgment) after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery]; Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 [terminating sanctions imposed against the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].) 

DISCUSSION

On October 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to deem admitted requests for admissions served on Plaintiff. (Min. Order, 10/18/23.) Counsel for Plaintiff declared under penalty of perjury that the requests had been directed to his spam folder and he was not aware of the requests until October 3, 2023. The Court admonished Plaintiff’s counsel to act more proactively and diligently in the future but allowed Plaintiff to serve verified responses by November 3, 2023.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to serve any responses, thereby violating the Court’s explicit order. (Hussein Decl. ¶ 10.) In addition, Defendants state that Plaintiff failed to attend a noticed deposition on September 20, 2023. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff has also failed to respond to Form and Special Interrogatories that were served on August 15, 2023, and due September 18, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.) Defendants assert they have made at least 15 separate attempts to reach Plaintiff’s counsel by phone and email. (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. B.) Defendants’ proof of service shows this motion was served on Plaintiff’s counsel by mail and e-mail on November 6, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

Based on the above, it appears Plaintiff has willfully failed to engage in discovery with Defendants and has failed to obey the Court’s October 18, 2023 order. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendants ask the Court to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 which provides: “[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. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court.” The Court declines to order sanctions under section 177.5.

Next, Defendants request $2,820 in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a) for bringing this motion. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions.  

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The complaint as to Defendants Athena Parking, Inc. and Los Angeles Unified School District is dismissed with prejudice.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.