Judge: David Sotelo, Case: BC696367, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC696367 Hearing Date: August 10, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association.
Saddletree brings this unopposed Motion for Terminating and
Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”) seeking (1) a Court Order terminating the
Dorado/Del Villar Second Amended Cross-Complaint for Conversion and Wrongful
Eviction based on Dorado and Del Villar’s failure to comply with discovery
requests from Saddletree and Court orders compelling responses to the same
requests and (2) $9,658.90 in monetary sanctions on the same grounds.
For the following reasons, the Court (1) GRANTS terminating
sanctions against the Second Amended Cross-Complaint and (2) GRANTS monetary
sanctions in the amount of $6,909.90. The Court also ENTERS JUDGMENT in this
action in favor of Saddletree, among other Orders.
On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association
(“Saddletree”) initiated this action against Defendants Francisco Dorado and Manuel
Del Villar (“Dorado”; “Del Villar”) for (1) Breach of Written Lease, (2) Account
Stated, and (3) Money Had and Received in order to recover unpaid rent, fees, and
other related dues in an amount not less than $60,000 based on allegations that
(i) in consideration for the use of a commercial property, Dorado and Del
Villar agreed to pay Saddletree base rent as of April 1, 2016 of $2,095.00 per
month, (ii) that on April 1, 2016, Dorado and Del Villar failed to pay Saddletree
the April 2016 rent and therefore defaulted under the terms and conditions of
the Lease Agreement, and (iii) on or about April 2017, Dorado and Del Villar
vacated the Subject Property
Dorado and Del Villar cross complained, first alleging seven
causes of action and eventually whittling these down to two in their Second
Amended Cross-Complaint—(1) Conversion and (2) Wrongful Eviction—based on
allegations that (i) in June 2016, they discovered Saddletree had leased the Subject
Property to Oracio Diaz, (ii) this discovery prompted Francisco Dorado and Manuel
Del Villar to contract with Mr. Diaz, renting the Subject Property for $1,100.00
per month, and (iii) they quit the Subject Property in April 2017 when Saddletree
changed the locks on the Property.
On September 22, 2020, the Court granted terminating sanctions
against Dorado and Del Villar’s Answer to Saddletree’s First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) based on their failure to comply with a March 11, 2020, Court Order compelling
responses to Form Interrogatories and Production of Documents, Set One
previously served by Saddletree on Dorado and Del Villar. As a result, the Court
entered Default on the FAC as against Dorado and Del Villar.
On June 4, 2021, Plaintiff petitioned for a Default Judgment
based on the Court’s striking of the Dorado/Del Villar Answer.
On September 17, 2021, the Court granted a motion by
Saddletree deeming admitted Request for Admission, Set Two, previously served
by Saddletree on Dorado and Del Villar, and compelling responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set Two, Production of Documents, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, previously served by Saddletree on Dorado and Del
Villar.
On January 3, 2022, the Court granted Default Judgment on
the Saddletree FAC.
On January 5, 2022, Saddletree moved for terminating
sanctions disposing of the Cross-Complaint in this action for failure to
respond to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Production of Documents, Set One,
Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and the Court’s September 17, 2021, Order
compelling responses to the same. The motion also sought monetary sanctions.
On March 28 and 30, 2022, the Court granted Saddletree monetary
sanctions in the total amount of $9,220 but denied terminating sanctions
against the Second Amended Cross-Complaint because evidence showed, inter alia,
that noncompliance was related to Defense Counsel contracting COVID-19.
On June 15 and 16, 2022, Del Villar and Dorado respectively
failed to appear for scheduled depositions to be conducted by Saddletree.
On July 6, 2022, Saddletree renewed this now pending Motion
for Terminating Sanctions against the Cross-Complaint on the grounds that Dorado
and Del Villar had failed (1) to comply with the September 17, 2021 Order
compelling responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Production of Documents,
Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, previously served by Saddletree on
Dorado and Del Villar, (2) failed to comply with the March 28, 2022 Order and
March 30, 2022 Notice of Ruling ordering Dorado, Del Villar, and Counsel Aldo
Flores, Esq. to pay Saddletree monetary sanctions in the amount of $9,220, and
(3) have to appear at their scheduled depositions on June 15 and 16, 2022. The
Motion also seeks Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $9,658.90 on the same
grounds.
The Motion is unopposed by Dorado and Del Villar.
Legal Standard: Where a party engages in misuse of
the discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence,
terminating, or contempt sanctions, including attorney’s fees. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a)-(d); see Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.
(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991 [“Section 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to
impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating
sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery
process”].) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to,”
(d) [f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and
“(g) [d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2023.010, subd. (d), (g).) The trial court may impose a terminating sanction
for discovery abuse after considering the totality of the circumstances,
including the conduct of the offending party to determine if the actions were
willful, the detriment to the propounding party, and the number of formal and
informal attempts to obtain the discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Generally, a decision to order terminating sanctions
should not be made lightly, but the trial court is justified in imposing the
ultimate sanction 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.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80.)
Analysis: Here, the Court finds that Dorado and Del
Villar have engaged in conduct amounting to discovery abuses meriting
terminating sanctions of the Dorado/Del Villar Second Amended Cross-Complaint.
Dorado and Del Villar have failed to (1) respond to three
discovery requests by Saddletree (Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Production of
Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set Two) and the September 17,
2021 Court Order compelling responses to the same, (2) comply with the Court’s
March 28, 2022 Order and March 30, 2022 Notice of Ruling directing Dorado, Del
Villar, and Counsel Aldo Flores, Esq. to pay $9,220 to Saddletree, and (3) appear
at scheduled depositions (on June 15 and 16, 2022). (Jul. 6 Mot., 9:1-10:24;
Jul. 6 Mot., Deam Decl., ¶¶ 1-24, Exs. A-M.)
The Court thus GRANTS the Terminating Sanctions motion and
STRIKES the Dorado and Del-Villar First-Amended Cross-Complaint. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (d)(1).)
As both operative pleadings have been resolved by Court
Orders—the FAC, by Default Judgment on January 3, 2022, in favor of Saddletree;
the Second Amended Cross-Complaint, by this Order—the Court ENTERS JUDGMENT in
favor of Saddletree. (See Jan. 3 Order.)
The Court also ORDERS Defendants Dorado and Del Villar to
pay Saddletree $9,220 in unpaid sanctions. (Jul. 6 Mot., Deam Decl., Ex. G, p.
2 [March 30, 2022, Notice of Ruling on January 5, 2022, Motion for Terminating
and Monetary Sanctions, ordering Defendants and Defense Counsel to pay a total
amount of $9,220 in sanctions].)
Legal Standard: If a party fails to obey a court
order compelling answers to interrogatories or requests for production, the
Court may make orders that it deems just, including the imposition of an issue
sanction, an evidence sanction, terminating sanction, and/or a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to
produce].) The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a
party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the
motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested
discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)
Analysis: Dorado and Del Villar have failed to
respond to discovery requests and comply with Court Orders as discussed ante.
The Court adopts these grounds to GRANT Saddletree’s requests for monetary
sanctions in the amount of $6,909.90 against Dorado and Del Villar, comprised
of: (1) ten, (not sixteen requested), hours of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s time
preparing the Dorado and Del Villar depositions at a rate of $275 per hour for
a local total of $2,750; (2) two hours of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s time appearing
for the Dorado and Del Villar depositions at $275 per hour for a local total of
$550; (3) $1,623.90 in Certificate of Non-Appearance costs related to Dorado
and Del Villar’s deposition nonappearance at a rate of $811.95 for each
certificate; (4) seven (not seven plus three) hours of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s
time preparing this Motion at a rate of $275 for a local total of $1,925; and
(5) $60 for the filing of this Motion. (Jul. 6 Mot., Deam Decl., ¶¶ 1, 25-28;
see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300,
subd. (c) [demand to produce]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED,
and the Court STRIKES Defendants/Cross-Complainants Francisco Dorado and
Manuel Del Villar’s Second Amended
Cross-Complaint.
As both operative pleadings have been resolved by Court
Orders—the FAC, by Default Judgment on January 3, 2022, in favor of Saddletree;
the Second Amended Cross-Complaint, by this Order—the Court ENTERS JUDGMENT in
favor of Saddletree.
The Court also ORDERS Defendants Dorado, Del Villar, and
Counsel, Aldo Flores, Esq., to, within forty-five (45) calendar days, remit
payment of $9,220 to Saddletree in unpaid sanctions, as directed by this
Court’s March 28, 2022, Order and March 30, 2022, Notice of Ruling.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Saddletree Ranch Homeowners
Association’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, in Part, in the amount
of $6,909.90, comprised of: (1) ten, not sixteen (as requested), hours of
Plaintiff’s Counsel’s time preparing the Dorado and Del Villar depositions at a
rate of $275 per hour for a local total of $2,750; (2) two hours of Plaintiff’s
Counsel’s time appearing for the Dorado and Del Villar depositions at $275 per
hour for a local total of $550; (3) 1,623.90 in Certificate of Non-Appearance
costs related to Dorado and Del Villar’s deposition nonappearance at a rate of
$811.95 for each certificate; (4) seven (not seven plus three) hours of
Plaintiff’s Counsel’s time preparing this Motion at a rate of $275 for a local
total of $1,925; and (5) $60 for the filing of this Motion.
Defendants/Cross-Complainants Francisco Dorado and Manuel
Del Villar are ORDERED to remit payment of $6909.90 to Plaintiff Saddletree
Ranch Homeowners Association within forty-five (45) calendar days.