Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 21STCP03778, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the matter off calendar.




            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.

        If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Petitioner State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions to dismiss and further bar Respondent Navid Faizi’s Demand for Arbitration is granted.

Petitioner’s request for monetary sanctions against Respondent Navid Faizi and his counsel of record is granted in the reduced amount of $560.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Petitioner State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (“State Farm”) (“Petitioner”) moves unopposed for terminating sanctions to dismiss and further bar Respondent Navid Faizi’s (“Faizi”) (“Respondent”) demand for arbitration. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) Petitioner further moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $825.00 against Respondent and his counsel of record as a result of Respondent’s failure to comply with this Court’s 3/15/23 Ruling to serve responses to Petitioner’s discovery consisting of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production within 20 days of notice of the order and other abuses of the discovery process. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P §§2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290, 2031.320.)

On August 26, 2022, Petitioner served written discovery on Respondent. Petitioner never received responses to discovery from Respondent, and on March 15, 2023, Petitioner’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production were granted by this Court. (3/15/23 Minute Order.) Respondent was also ordered to pay $825.00 in sanctions within 20 days of the notice of the Court’s ruling. To date, Petitioner has not received discovery responses from Respondent or paid the sanctions. (Decl. of Weilbacher ¶6.)

On October 30, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing Respondent has not filed an opposition.

The Court, “after notice to any affected party . . . and after opportunity for hearing,” may impose terminating and/or monetary sanctions for misuses of the discovery process. (C.C.P. §2023.030(a) and (d).) Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (C.C.P. §§2023.010(d), (g).)

“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.) When deciding whether to impose terminating sanctions, courts generally weigh three factors: (1) whether the party subject to the sanction acted willfully, (2) the detriment to the party seeking discovery, and (3) the number of formal and informal unsuccessful attempts to obtain discovery. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702; Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Nonmonetary sanctions require evidence of willful violations of discovery orders or a history of egregious abuses of discovery. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486.) A prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions is willful disobedience of a court order. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403.) By requiring a violation of a discovery order before imposing nonmonetary sanctions, California courts can be sure that the offending party does not intend to comply with the discovery request. (Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1581.) “[A] terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.” (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Petitioner moves for terminating sanctions on the grounds Respondent has failed to produce discovery responses in violation of this Court’s order, and such a failure to produce responses has prevented Petitioner from preparing for arbitration or defend against Respondent’s claims. (Decl. of Weilbacher ¶7; Motion, pg. 9; Creed-21, 18 Cal.App.5th at pg. 702.)

The Court finds Petitioner is entitled to an order granting terminating sanctions against Respondent. Respondent has failed to timely provide complete responses to Petitioner’s discovery even after Respondent was ordered by this Court to provide discovery responses. A refusal to comply with an order for the production of evidence is tantamount to an admission that the disobedient party really has no meritorious claim. (Hahn v. Kahn (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 382.)

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted.

In addition to or in lieu of any other sanction, the court may order the disobedient party or counsel responsible or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the failure to obey (including fees on the sanctions motion). (C.C.P. §2023.030(a); see Marriage of Niklas (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 28, 37-38 [holding declarations did not show fees were for services related to opposing party’s failure to comply with prior orders].)

Petitioner requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $825.00 against Respondent and his counsel of record incurred from reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs in connection with the preparation, filing, and service of the instant motion. Petitioner’s counsel declares “reasonable compensation is $250.00 per hour,” which the Court interprets as counsel’s declaration of their hourly rate, and that counsel spent 2 hours in preparation of this motion, in addition to the filing fee of $60.00. (Decl. of Weilbacher ¶8.) The Court determines Petitioner’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable based on the experience of the Court. Petitioner’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced amount of $560.00 ([$250/hour x 2 hours] + $60.00).

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for monetary sanctions against Respondent and her counsel of record is granted in the reduced amount of $560.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court