Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV20322, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20322    Hearing Date: August 21, 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 (which is highly encouraged).  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 arises from an incident where Jonathan Scott Gazzola (“Plaintiff”) approached a vehicle he had requested through the rideshare application, Lyft on February 11, 2021. After placing his hand on the passenger door to enter the vehicle, the vehicle suddenly accelerated, and Plaintiff alleges that his hand was caught in the door handle and that he was dragged on along the ground before being able to disengage his hand. (Complaint, ¶ 23.) Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 28, 2021 alleging a single cause of action for negligence against Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant”)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions (“Motion”) on June 8, 2023. No opposition briefs were filed, and the instant Motion is unopposed. 

DISCUSSION

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 April 25, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to discovery requests and pay monetary sanctions within 30 days. (Minute Order Dated 4/25/23.) As of the filing of the motion, no responses were served and no sanctions were paid. (Blackburn Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff has thus disobeyed this Court’s order. Further, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, which creates an inferences that the motion is meritorious.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court dismisses the action without prejudice.

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