Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV17731, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17731    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Angela Lasane (“Angela”), Cassidy Austin (“Cassidy”), Jayson Lasane (“Jayson”), Tamisha Franklin (“Tamisha”), and Zahnai Jackson (“Zahnai”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Tamisha, filed this action against Defendants Cashiya Hollis and Tiffiney Willis (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Angela, Tamisha, and Jayson have dismissed the complaint as to their claims. 

Defendants now move for terminating sanctions against each Cassidy and Zahnai for their misuse of the discovery process and failure to comply with the Court’s orders compelling Cassidy and Zahnai to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests.  The motions are unopposed. 

2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

            a. Motion Against Zahnai

On November 15, 2022, Zahnai’s counsel filed a Request for Dismissal seeking to dismiss Zahnai’s complaint against Defendants without prejudice.  Although a guardian ad litem needs court approval to compromise a claim, a guardian may dismiss an action without prejudice without court approval.  (Zapanta v. Universal Care (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1174.)  The Court has processed the dismissal.  Accordingly, in light of Zahnai’s dismissal of his complaint against Defendants, the motion for terminating sanctions is moot. 

            b. Motion Against Cassidy

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, after Cassidy failed to serve responses to Defendants’ written discovery, Defendants’ moved to compel Cassidy to respond to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one.  Defendants’ motions to compel were unopposed and granted on August 5, 2022.  Cassidy was ordered to serve responses to the discovery and to pay monetary sanctions of $984.95 within 20 days.  Defendants filed and served notice of the ruling on Cassidy on August 10, 2022.  However, to date, Cassidy has not responded to the subject discovery requests or paid the monetary sanctions.  Defendants aver that Cassidy has clearly abandoned the case. 

Defendants evidence shows that Cassidy failed to comply with the Court’s order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, and Cassidy failed to comply with the previously imposed monetary sanctions.  Lesser sanctions, thus, have been ineffective in getting Cassidy to comply with her discovery obligations.  Moreover, a brief review of the prior motion reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the crux of Cassidy’s claim, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction.  Further, Cassidy does not oppose this motion and appears to have abandoned the case. 

Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time.  Cassidy’s action against Defendants is hereby dismissed.

            No monetary sanctions are requested, and none are awarded.

Defendants are 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 6^th day of December 2022