Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case 18STCV05865 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 18STCV05865, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV05865 Hearing Date: May 16, 2023 Dept: 68

Martin Lara, et al. vs. Jose Lopez, et al.; Case No. 18STCV05865

Motion for Sanctions

Moving Parties – Plaintiffs Martin and Marth Lara

Moving Parties’ Position and Background

Plaintiffs Martin and Martha Lara (Plaintiffs) are requesting both monetary and issue sanctions against the defaulted Defendant Jose Lopez (Lopez). Plaintiffs are requesting costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by them in connection with this motion in the amount of $3,103.29. Plaintiffs are also seeking an order establishing that Lopez violated Civil Code Section 1942.5 and retaliated against the tenant Plaintiffs for reporting his actions to the Los Angeles Housing Department. Plaintiffs are requesting the Court’s assistance in preventing Lopez from appearing at trial to refute this claim on his or the other Defendants’ behalf without obeying the Court’s order to attend his deposition.

Plaintiffs have filed this motion because Lopez has failed to attend his depositions, despite court orders to do so. Lopez (1) first refused to obey Plaintiff’s subpoena for deposition on December 19, 2022; (2) the Court then ordered Lopez to appear for deposition within 30 days of the service of the Court’s order on March 3, 2023; (3) Plaintiffs served that order on Lopez on March 6, 2023; (4) Plaintiffs subpoenaed Lopez via personal service on March 18, 2023, to appear at a deposition set on April 6, 2023; (5) Lopez failed to appear at the deposition set on April 6, 2023, in defiance of the Court’s March 3, 2023 order. (Motion at p. 2.)

Plaintiffs must explain to the Court why it is necessary or appropriate to have an issue sanction when Jose Lopez is in default and has no right to participate in the defense of this action. Why is it not sufficient to simply allow Plaintiffs to prove up their default case? To what extent does the requested relief indirectly impact other defendants who have not violated a court order?

Analysis

Monetary Sanctions:

The scope of discovery is tailored to “such as is suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery [they seek].” (Manlin v. Milner (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1022–25.) Where monetary sanctions are necessary to protect the asking party that has expended costs to bring the responding party into compliance, the Court will award monetary sanctions in addition to other forms of sanctions. For example, where a responding party has refused a court order to provide responsive documents with “willful disobedience of” a court order, the court was therefore reasonable in imposing both evidentiary and monetary sanctions against the responding party. (Id. at 30; see also, Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 616–21 (also affirming the lower court’s decision to impose both monetary and evidentiary sanctions in light of willful disobedience of a court order).)

Plaintiffs expended $3,103.29 to bring this motion. Plaintiffs’ attorney Gina Hong spent 3 hours preparing this motion at $600 an hour for a total of $1,800; the deposition service fees for the depositions which Lopez missed were $1,166.65; the court fees were $61.64; and the process serving fees were $75. (Hong Dec., ¶ 4, 8.) The Court finds that $3,103.29 is a reasonable amount and grants Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions.

Issue Sanctions

After notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and an opportunity for a hearing, “The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.030(b).) Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, and making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. (CCP §§ 2023.010(d)-(e), (g).)

In exercising its broad discretion, the “trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should attempt to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2008) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992 (internal citations omitted).)

In In re Marriage of Economou, a husband who failed to obey a court order to provide financial information in dissolution proceedings was sanctioned with issue sanctions, and precluded from further harming the wife at trial in light of his failure to meet his discovery obligations. (In re Marriage of Economou (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 97, 103 (affirming lower court’s imposition of issue sanctions preventing husband who violated discovery orders from “offering any evidence, making any objections, or cross-examining any of wife’s witnesses at trial on any issues except dissolution, custody, and visitation.”). The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, determining that the trial court “properly made an order it deemed necessary” in light of the husband’s evasion of court orders. (Id.)

In this case, Lopez has failed to appear for his depositions and violated a court order to appear for deposition. His failures to appear are willful and have prevented Plaintiffs from investigating their claims. Plaintiffs now seek an order determining that Lopez violated Civil Code § 1942.5 by retaliating against Plaintiffs for their report of an alleged illegal eviction to the Los Angeles Housing Department. Plaintiffs further request that the Court prevent Lopez from offering any evidence, making any objections, or cross-examining any of Plaintiffs’ witnesses at trial on any issues regarding his liability under Section 1942.5 and the Unlawful Business Practices Act.

Since Jose Lopez is in default, it is not appropriate or necessary to issue an “issue sanction.” He is precluded form defending against this case.

There are other defendants. They are entitled to defend. The requested issue sanctions would not apply to them. Thus, it does not appear to appropriate.

However, Jose Lopez shall not be permitted to testify at trial without having submitted to and completed a deposition.

Order

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $3,103.29 is granted.

2. Defendant Jose Lopez is ordered to the pay the sanctions to Plaintiffs’ attorney within 30 days of service of this order.

3. Jose Lopez shall not be permitted to testify at trial for any purpose without having first appeared at and completed a deposition.

4. Any party intending to call Jose Lopez as a witness shall notify Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing of that intent no later than October 1, 2023. Any party intending to call Jose Lopez as a witness at trial shall make reasonable efforts to arrange for the deposition of Jose Lopez no later than November 20, 2023.