Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV16593, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

 



 




Case Number: 20STCV16593    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 74

Gladys Del Socorro Amador, et al. v. 511 Rampart, LLC, et al.

 

Defendant Rampart 36, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff Martin Quiroz Galvez

 

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a dispute between a landlord and multiple tenants.

            On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff Martin Quiroz Galvez (Plaintiff) and others filed a complaint against Defendant Rampart 36, LLC (Defendant) and others. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: breach of warranty of habitability, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, breach of contract, nuisance, and unfair competition.

            Defendant has since reached a settlement agreement with other plaintiffs in this action.

            On July 20, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

            California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party's refusal to obey a discovery order, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030; Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390.) A court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty. (Los Defensores, supra, at p. 390.)

            “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) Discovery 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 v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.) Severe non-monetary sanctions for failure to comply with a court order are allowed only where the failure was willful. (See R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The authority which Defendant cites for the proposition that the discovery violation need not be willful (Ghanooni v Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 260) involved imposing attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions (which are intended to make the moving party whole regardless of the non-responding party’s wilfullness), not terminating sanctions.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant seeks terminating sanctions against Plaintiff because he has not responded to any written discovery. For example, Plaintiff never provided responses to form interrogatories, as ordered by the court on March 21, 2023. But Plaintiff’s former counsel has indicated that Plaintiff died in January 2021. (Volcy Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s former counsel has further indicated that Plaintiff’s next of kin have refused to continue with the case on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Volcy Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) Given these circumstances, the court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court order was not willful, meaning terminating sanctions are not appropriate. However, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

                The court denies Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions. The court instead dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant without prejudice. The court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against the deceased Plaintiff.

            Defendant shall give notice.