Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV36547, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36547    Hearing Date: August 18, 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

This personal injury action stems from an automobile accident that occurred on September 25, 2018. Danielle Hancox (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Alvaro Arriaga collided with her vehicle while he was driving a vehicle owned by Smarden-Hatcher Co., Inc. (“Defendants”). (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 24, 2020. Defendants filed their instant Motion to Dismiss on June 27, 2023. No opposition nor reply briefs were filed.  

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Although Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d)(3) provides the Court the power to dismiss an action as a sanction for misuse of the discovery process, “[t]he sanction of dismissal…against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution.” (Victory Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158-1159.) Dismissal is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court's authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative. (Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 323, 331.) Equally important, “a terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.”  (Newland v. Superior Court¿(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) 

Analysis

Here, on May 20, 2022, Defendants served discovery requests on Plaintiff. The deadline to respond to those requests was on or before June 22, 2022. (Declaration of R. Todd Windisch, hereinafter, “Windisch Dec.”, ¶¶ 4-5.) A 30-day extension was requested and granted, yielding a new deadline of July 22, 2022. (Windisch Dec., ¶¶ 6-7.) After Plaintiff failed to meet this deadline, three separate meet and confer letters regarding discovery responses were sent but to no avail. (Windisch Dec., ¶¶ 7-10.) Defendants then filed motions to compel on March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed no opposition, and the Court granted all of Defendants’ motions to compel on April 24, 2023. (Windisch Dec., ¶ 11.) However, Plaintiff, as of the filing date of the instant Motion on June 27, 2023, has not served responses, in direct violation of a Court order. Trial is currently set for October 18, 2023. Further, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and has waived the right to argue that terminating sanctions are unwarranted.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Accordingly, the Court, in part, grants Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions, and dismisses Plaintiff’s action against Defendants. Due to the Court dismissing the action against Plaintiff, the Court denies Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The action is dismissed against Defendants without prejudice.

Defendants shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.