Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 23TRCV01250, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01250    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         April 28, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Responding Party:                  None

Motion to Dismiss this Action Against Defendant LACMTA Based on Plaintiff Micah Session’s Failure to Obey the Court’s January 31, 2023 Order; Request for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions

            The court considered the moving papers. 

RULING

            The motion GRANTED.  The court dismisses plaintiff Micah Session’s First Amended Complaint against defendant LA County MTA with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2021, plaintiffs Brenda Session, Lowdean Session, and Micah Session filed a complaint against Memorial Hospital of Gardena and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for (1) wrongful death, (2) governmental negligence, and (3) medical malpractice.

            On May 31, 2022, the court (PI Hub) denied defendant Gardena Hospital, L.P. dba Memorial Hospital of Gardena’s motion to transfer PI case to IC court.

            On June 23, 2022, the court (PI Hub) sustained Gardena Hospital’s demurrer with leave to amend and denied the motion to strike.

            On July 18, 2022, plaintiffs filed a FAC for (1) negligence and (2) medical malpractice.

            On July 25, 2022, defendant Gardena Hospital filed a stipulation to strike mention of punitive damages and attorney’s fees from FAC and an order was entered on July 26, 2022.

            On September 13, 2022, the court sustained Gardena Hospital’s demurrer without leave to amend as to plaintiffs Brenda and Lowdean Session on the ground that as parents, they lack standing and the 2^nd cause of action for medical malpractice as alleged by them.

            On October 10, 2022, Gardena Hospital filed a notice of stay of proceedings as to a voluntary bankruptcy petition filed by Pipeline Health System, LLC and 32 affiliated companies.

            On October 25, 2022, the case was transferred to Dept. M.

            On January 17, 2023, the court granted defendant LA County MTA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs Brenda and Lowdean Session.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.  CCP § 2025.450(h) (depositions); § 2030.290(c) (interrogatories); § 2031.300(c) (demands for production of documents).  CCP § 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . .  [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .”  CCP § 2023.010 provides that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. . . .” 

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances:  [the] conduct of the 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.’”  Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246).  “Generally, ‘[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.’”  Los Defensores, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 390 (citation omitted).

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  Los Defensores, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 390 (citing Lang, 77 Cal. App. 4th at 1244-1246 (discussing cases)); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 469, 478, n. 4 (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).

DISCUSSION

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority requests an order imposing terminating and monetary sanctions against plaintiff Micah Session.

On January 31, 2023, the court granted defendant LACMTA’s motions to compel plaintiff Micah Session to respond without objections to defendant’s form interrogatories and demand for production of documents within 20 days.  The court also ordered that plaintiff and his attorneys of record pay sanctions in the amount of $1,320 within 30 days.

Defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to serve responses and pay sanctions as ordered by the court.

A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction. ¿Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 610, 615.  

The court notes that plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

The court finds that plaintiff Micah Session has engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process by disobeying the court’s January 31, 2023 order to serve responses as directed by the court.  CCP §§2023.010(g), 2023.030.  The court thus finds that it is appropriate, and exercises its discretion, to impose terminating sanctions.  CCP §2023.030(d)(1).  Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,950 for attorney’s fees but the court finds that terminating sanctions is sufficient.

The motion is GRANTED.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling.