Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 21STCV39103, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39103    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 58

JUDGE BRUCE G. IWASAKI

Hearing Date:             August 11, 2022

Case Name:                Jane Doe et al. v. 4245 Laurel Canyon LLC

Case No.:                    21STCV39103

Matter:                        Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party:             Defendant 4245 Laurel Canyon LLC

Responding Party:      Unopposed

Background and Procedural History

            This is a habitability case.  On October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs Jane Doe and John Doe sued Defendant 4245 Laurel Canyon LLC for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of quiet enjoyment, negligence, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, nuisance, and retaliation.   

            Plaintiffs allege that throughout the tenancy, “The Property did not comply with all appli[c]able building and safety codes, housing codes, and habitability codes. There was no mold disclosure or addendum provided with the Lease to Plaintiffs at the time of signing, and Defendants did not provide any such disclosure at any time thereafter.” (Complaint, ¶ 15).  “Rather than fulfill their obligations and duties as the landlord, Defendants harassed, intim[id]ated, and threatened Plaintiffs as well as diminished services in an attempt to drive Plaintiffs from the Property.”  (Id. at ¶ 52.) 

            Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw from the case on November 17, 2021, less than a month after the Complaint was filed.   The Court granted the motion on May 12, 2022.[1]

            Prior to the withdrawal, Defendant propounded two forms of discovery to the plaintiffs on December 7, 2021: (1) Form Interrogatories, and (2) Request for Production of Documents.  Plaintiffs did not respond, despite receiving a 30-day extension from Defendant.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 11.)  Instead, on December 27, 2021, Plaintiffs demurred to Defendant’s Answer, which this Court overruled.

            Defendants then moved to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to the discovery.  On April 5, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel and ordered Plaintiffs to respond to the form interrogatories and request for production of documents by April 25, 2022.  No sanctions were ordered.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 15.)  Plaintiffs failed to provide any discovery responses.

            Defendants now move for an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to comply with this Court’s orders on April 5, 2022, and for an award of monetary sanctions.  No opposition was filed.  The request for judicial notice of the four motions to compel that were filed on March 7, 2022 is granted.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Discussion

            Defendant requests that the Court dismiss this case and award $2,561.65 in monetary sanctions.  The amount reflects $2,500.00 in attorney’s fees at $250.00 per hour to prepare the motion, reviewing any opposition, and drafting a reply brief, and $61.65 in filing fees.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 19.)

            Defendant contends that this Complaint was filed only days before it filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiffs in a separate case, 21PDUD01012.  (Id. at ¶ 3.)  In that case, default judgment was entered against the prior tenants on December 14, 2021.

            Furthermore, Plaintiffs have reportedly vacated the premises.  At the April 5, 2022 hearing on the motions to compel, Plaintiff’s counsel provided a new physical mailing address for his clients.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 16.)

Dismissal is warranted because of the history of the case, Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the discovery order, and their subsequent failure to oppose this motion to dismiss.

            A terminating sanction “is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court’s authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative.”  (Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331; see also Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80 [“[W]here 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”].)

            While terminating sanctions are generally imposed as a last resort, “even under the Civil Discovery Act's incremental approach, the trial court may impose terminating sanctions as a first measure in extreme cases, or where the record shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191-192, disapproved on other grounds in Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493, 516, fn. 17.)

            Such a case is presented here.  While sanctions were not previously issued against Plaintiffs for the failure to respond to discovery, this was at the request of Defendant providing a courtesy to Plaintiffs’ counsel, who had moved to withdraw from the case.  (Johnson Decl., ¶ 15.) 

            The overall history of this case and its relation to the parallel unlawful detainer action justify dismissal.  While Plaintiffs’ counsel only recently withdrew, he initially filed his motion to withdraw less than one month after filing the Complaint.  The Complaint itself was also filed within mere days of the unlawful detainer action.

            The failure to respond to the discovery and the subsequent discovery order was also willful.  Defendant’s counsel noticed both the Plaintiffs and their counsel of the Orders granting the motions to compel and the current motion to dismiss the case.  And still, there has been no response to the discovery.  Instead, Plaintiffs opted to demur to Defendant’s Answer.  Moreover, Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion and appear to have abandoned the case.  Therefore, it is apparent that lesser sanctions would be ineffective.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses this matter with prejudice and awards monetary sanctions.  Because there is no opposition to this motion and this is a straightforward case of Plaintiffs’ complete failure to respond, the Court awards $1,500.00 in sanctions against Plaintiffs.  Sanctions are imposed on Plaintiff in their actual names, not the pseudonyms adopted in this matter.  It is questionable whether Plaintiffs were entitled to sue anonymously without court approval.  (Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Aug. 5, 2022, H048962) __Cal.App.5^th __ [2022 DJDAR 8509; 2022 WL 3136002].)  Plaintiffs are ordered to pay $1,500 to Defendant’s counsel, Foley & Mansfield, or before September 15, 2022.