Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV46059, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46059    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Azucena Rivera (“Rivera”) and Ashley Ortega (“Ortega”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Lisane Menezes (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint because of Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s July 12 and July 13, 2022 orders compelling Rivera and Ortega to each respond to written discovery.  Additionally, Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $760.00 against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel.  The motion is unopposed.

2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process.  A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d).)  A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions.  (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.)  Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders.  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.) 

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution."  (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.)  "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."  (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)  While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these 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."  (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.)  "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations."  (Ibid.)  Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information.  (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971].)

Here, on July 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, against Rivera, and motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”) against Ortega, ordering Plaintiffs each to serve verified responses to the subject discovery within 15 days.  On July 13, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to RPDs, set one, against Rivera order Rivera to serve verified responses to the RPDs within 15 days.  Defendant filed notice of the rulings with proof of service on Plaintiffs on the same day each order was issued.  

Defendant submits evidence showing Plaintiffs have each failed to comply with the Court’s orders and serve discovery requests.  Moreover, a brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction.  Further, Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion and appear to have abandoned the case. 

Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time.  Plaintiffs’ action against Defendant is hereby dismissed.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with this motion pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300.  The imposition of terminating sanctions does not make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust.  (See Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 76-78.)

In this case, the Court awards Defendant two hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing at the requested rate of $175 per hour, for a total of $525 in attorney fees.  Further, the court awards Defendant the motion filing fee of $60 as costs.  

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney of record, jointly and severally.  Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $585.00, within twenty days. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 4^th day of October 2022