Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 20STCV03962, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03962    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 11

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion for Sanctions Re: 20STCV03962 (Wedel)

Date:                           9/22/22

Time:                          11:00 am

Moving Party:           James Wedel, Charles McWhales, Simon Mashian, Fausto Hernandez, Michaela Vivant (jointly “Plaintiffs”)

Opposing Party:        Barrington Pacific, LLC, Douglas Emmett Management, LLC (jointly “Defendants”)

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is granted.

Plaintiffs should be prepared to justify the $9,540 requested amount at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is a class action.  The case arises out of multiple fires at Barrington Plaza from 2013 to 2020.  Plaintiffs allege that some tenants suffered injuries and even died because of faulty smoke alarms, Defendants’ failure to install sprinklers, and other defects.

On 1/19/22, the Court signed the parties’ stipulated order, requiring Defendants to produce certain documents by 2/21/22.

Defendants failed to comply, then Plaintiffs moved for monetary sanctions.

On 6/6/22, the Court granted monetary sanctions in the amount of $32,280 and ordered Defendants to pay “no later than 30 days after” they received notice of the 6/6/22 order.  (6/6/22 Order, p. 2.)

Here, Plaintiffs move for additional monetary sanctions, claiming Defendants violated the 6/6/22 order.

DISCUSSION

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants violated the 6/6/22 order: 

* the order required payment within 30 days of receiving notice (see 6/6/22 Order, p. 2);

* Defendants received notice on 6/7/22 (see Motion, p. 2); 

* they paid 20 days late on 7/27/22 (see Opposition, p. 2; see also Motion, p. 2).

In the moving papers, Plaintiffs request $64,000 due to the late payment.

In reply, they appear to reduce the requested amount to $9,540 to cover the time spent preparing the motion.  (See Reply, p. 3.)

Plaintiffs’ notice seeks additional monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 2023.010(g), and 2023.030.  (See Notice of Motion, p. 2.)

Section 128.5 is inapplicable.  The Court granted the previously ordered monetary sanctions because Defendants failed to comply with the 1/19/22 discovery order to produce documents.  It follows that the current situation is a discovery-related matter.  Section 128.5 does not apply to discovery-related matters.  (See, e.g., Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 9:1010.7.)

Section 2023.010(g) states that “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” constitutes a “[m]issue[] of the discovery process[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (g).)

Section 2023.030 authorizes monetary sanctions for a “misuse of the discovery process[.]”  (Id. at § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

The Court finds that the motion should be granted.  The failure to pay on time was yet another discovery abuse by Defendants.  “[A]dditional monetary sanctions” are permitted where, as here, a party disobeys a discovery-related order.  (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 8:1489.)

Again, Plaintiffs request $9,540.  It is recoverable as long as it represents “the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred” on the motion.  (Id. at ¶ 8:2194.)  Last time, the Court held that the reasonable rate for attorney Dan Terzian is $600 per hour.  Plaintiffs need to justify the amount during the hearing based on the $600 rate.