Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV25750, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25750    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    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

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) moves for an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and imposing sanctions of $2,360 against Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang (“Plaintiff”) and/or her attorneys of record, arguing that those sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff disobeyed the Court’s discovery orders. Plaintiff filed a belated opposition the day of the hearing.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: ¶ …. ¶ …. ¶ …. ¶ (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, subd. (a)(1).)

“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

After Plaintiff filed this personal injury action on October 20, 2023, and before any defendant made an appearance, Plaintiff filed the FAC on December 20, 2023, against County of Los Angeles, LACMTA, Bernard Allen Clarence (“Clarence”), Santiago Mendez Casiano (“Casiano”), and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, asserting one cause of action for negligence.

On June 25, 2024, LACMTA filed motions to compel Plaintiff to serve her initial responses to the defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff did not oppose those motions and did not appear for their hearing on July 25, 2024.

The Court granted LACMTA’s motions to compel, ordering Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to the discovery, and pay LACMTA sanctions of $900, all within 30 days of the ruling. (Minute Order dated July 25, 2024 (“July 25 Order”), p. 3.) The Court ordered LACMTA to provide notice of the order and file proof of service of such. LACMTA filed a Notice of Ruling on July 25, 2024.

LACMTA now moves to dismiss the FAC, arguing that Plaintiff failed to comply with the July 25 Order because Plaintiff did not serve any responses and did not pay any sanctions. (Motion, Declaration of Allen L. Thomas (“Thomas Decl.”), ¶ 7.) According to defense counsel, “[d]ue to plaintiff's failure to respond to the discovery, [LACMTA] is unable to adequately defend itself against plaintiff’s claims. [The] discovery covers the issues of liability, plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages, and any investigation known to plaintiff or anyone acting on her behalf.” (Thomas Decl., ¶ 8.) “The failure to provide responses materially affects the [defendant’s] … ability to accurately evaluate plaintiff’s claims, as well as to adequately prepare to defend … against plaintiff’s claims.” (Thomas Decl., ¶ 9.) “No excuse has been provided for the plaintiff's refusal to respond to discovery in this action.” (Thomas Decl., ¶ 10.) “Plaintiff’s attorneys have not filed a motion to withdraw as plaintiff’s attorneys.” (Thomas Decl., ¶ 11.)

On the date of the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a belated opposition including a declaration of counsel that the reason for the failure to comply with the Court’s orders and respond to discovery requests is due to counsel’s physical and mental health issues. The Court notes that the motion itself was served on Plaintiff but not defendant Santiago Mendez Casiano. Notices of motion must be served on all parties who have appeared in the action. (Code of Civ. Proc. Section 1014.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court continues the motion to November 18, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Defendant shall give notice of the motion to all parties. To the extent Plaintiff serves belated discovery responses, Plaintiff may file an updated opposition. Any such opposition must be filed and served by November 7, 2024. Any reply brief must be filed and served by November 13, 2024.

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