Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCP03778, Date: 2023-12-22 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 Navid Faizi’s Demand for Arbitration is denied.

Petitioner’s request for monetary sanctions against Navid Faizi and his counsel of record is denied.

Petitioner State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (“State Farm”) (“Petitioner”) moves unopposed for terminating sanctions to dismiss and further bar Non-party Navid Faizi’s (“Faizi”) (“Non-party”) demand for arbitration. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) Petitioner further moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $825.00 against Faizi 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 November 16, 2021, Petitioner filed the petition for assignment of miscellaneous case number against Respondent Mariam Ahmadi (“Ahmadi”) (“Respondent”) arising from an uninsured motorist arbitration action. No documentation regarding the arbitration action was attached to Petitioner’s filing. No party other than Ahmadi is named on this petition.

On August 26, 2022, Petitioner served written discovery on Non-party Faizi. Petitioner never received responses to discovery from Faizi, 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.) Faizi 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 Faizi 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 Faizi 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 Faizi’s claims. (Decl. of Weilbacher ¶7; Motion, pg. 9; Creed-21, 18 Cal.App.5th at pg. 702.)

The Court does not have jurisdiction over Faizi in this matter. Petitioner has not submitted evidence before this Court that Faizi is a respondent in the arbitration action. Petitioner’s operative petition in this matter demonstrates that Faizi was not served the petition; only Ahmadi was served by personal service on December 1, 2021. As such, Faizi is not named on the petition, nor has he been properly served in this action. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to issue rulings against Faizi.

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

In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion for terminating sanctions, Petitioner’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

A statutory motion for reconsideration requires that the motion be made 10 days from the date the order at issue is served. (C.C.P. §1008.) However, the Court has discretion to reconsider an order on its own motion pursuant to its “constitutionally derived authority.” (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1096.) Section 1008 limits the parties’ ability to file repetitive motions to reconsider but does not limit the court’s ability to reconsider its prior interim orders to correct its own errors. (Id. at pg. 1109.)

As the Court is not constrained by the limitations or the requirements of C.C.P. §1008 and based on its inherent authority, the Court reconsiders its order compelling Faizi to provide responses to Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One), and pay monetary sanctions. (Id. at pg. 1095.)

Petitioner’s Motions to Compel Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One) against Faizi is denied. Petitioner’s request for sanctions against Faizi is denied.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court