Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 21STCV32446 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV32446, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32446 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: 28

Defendants Andrew Alex Azarian, Fred Azarian and Karineh Azarian’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Hamed Abedi (“Abedi”) and Jahangir Sojoudi Haghighi (“Haghighi”) filed this action against Defendant Andrew Alex Azarian (“Andrew”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Fred Azarian (“Fred”) and Karineh Azarian (“Karineh”).

On January 25, 2022, Defendants filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Abedi for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and motor vehicle negligence. On May 4, 202, Abedi filed an answer.

On November 8, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on December 14, 2022.

The trial date currently set for March 1, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendants request the Court issue terminating sanctions against Haghighi. Defendant also requests sanctions totaling $1,500.00

LEGAL STANDARD

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].)

DISCUSSION

Defendants served Haghighi with discovery on February 9, 2022; all responses were due on March 11, 2022. Haghighi failed to provide discovery responses. Defendants filed motions to compel discovery to be heard on August 24, 2022. The Court granted all motions, requiring discovery responses be served by September 26, 2022. Plaintiff has yet to serve any discovery responses. The Court finds grounds for terminating sanctions. Haghighi has failed to abide by the Court’s orders and serve discovery responses. There is no indication that less severe sanction would produce compliance with discovery rules. The Court grants the motion.

Defendants request monetary sanctions totaling $1,50.00, based upon 8 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $180.00 per hour and one $60.00 filling fee. 3.5 hours were spent preparing the motion, 2 hours were anticipated in reviewing and replying to an opposition, and 2.5 hours for appearing at the hearing. The motion was unopposed, so the Court will not grant sanctions based on time spent replying. The Court grants sanctions totaling $870.00, based on 4.5 hours of attorney’s work.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Andrew Alex Azarian, Fred Azarian and Karineh Azarian’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Haghighi's action against Defendant is dismissed.

Defendants Andrew Alex Azarian, Fred Azarian and Karineh Azarian’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Haghighi and Haghighi’s counsel are ordered to pay $870.00 in sanctions to Defendants within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.