Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV31895, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31895    Hearing Date: November 8, 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 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC and Ean Holdings, LLC (Defendants) move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs Nahla Alicia Kandah and Alaa Kandah (Plaintiffs) for failing to comply with discovery orders.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a person is engaging in misuse of the discovery process, the Court may issue a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

“(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).)

“Misuse of the discovery process” includes: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

“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

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not complied with three discovery orders from the Court.

On May 25, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel further Plaintiffs’ responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Min. Order, 5/25/23.) Notice was served on Plaintiffs.[1] On June 21, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Min. Order, 6/21/23.) Notice was served on Plaintiffs.[2] Lastly, on June 22, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Min. Order, 6/22/23.) Notice was served on Plaintiffs.[3] According to Defendants, as of the filing of this motion, no responses complying with any of the Court’s orders have been served. (Miller Decl. ¶ 8, 12, 16.)

No opposition has been filed. Given the history of discovery abuse by Plaintiffs, the Court grants the motion for terminating sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The complaint as to Defendants Enterprise Rent A Car and EAN Holdings, Inc. is dismissed with prejudice.

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