Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV17181, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17181    Hearing Date: August 16, 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

MOTION

            Defendant Gene Bae (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiffs Alfredo Miguel, Cory Beatriz Juan Pablo, Yerick Miguel Juan, Axel Miguel Juan And Allan Miguel Juan (“Plaintiffs”) as a terminating sanction.  Additionally, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500.

ANALYSIS

The court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).)  The court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading or dismissing the action of the party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (d)(1) & (d)(3).) 

California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party's refusal to obey a discovery order, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions.  A court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty, . . . . Despite this broad discretion, the courts have long recognized that the terminating sanction is a drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.  A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party's fundamental right to a trial, thus implicating due process rights.  The trial court should select a sanction that is tailored to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.  Sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.

(Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604 [cleaned up].)  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.)

Here, on September 14, 15, and 20, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to provide responses to discovery propounded by Defendant.  (Bridwell Decl., ¶¶7-8, Exhs. B, D.)  Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the orders. (Ibid.)  

Plaintiffs have not provided the subject discovery responses. Plaintiffs have thus disobeyed this Court’s orders of September 14, 15, and 20, 2022. Further, Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, and have waived the right to argue that terminating sanctions are unwarranted.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court, in part, grants Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions, and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs’ action against Defendant.  Due to the Court dismissing the action against Defendant, the Court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions as moot.

The Court orders Defendant to provide notice of this Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.