Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Joshua Kadisha, Haleh Manavi, as an individual and as Trustee of the Haleh-Manavi-Kadisha Living Trust under Trust Instrument dated April 2, 2009 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Amanda Razi and Joseph Azizi  

 

BACKGROUND 

  This case arises from a dispute between neighbors.  Plaintiffs Amanda Razi and Joseph Azizi allege that roots and branches belonging to trees on the property of Defendants Joseph Kadisha, and Haleh Manavi as an individual and as Trustee of the Haleh Manavi-Kadisha Living Trust, have encroached onto Plaintiffs’ property.  Plaintiffs allege the roots, branches and other debris from Defendants’ trees have caused extensive damage to their pool, air conditioning units, roof, retaining walls and foundation and have resulted in a diminution of their property value.   

The operative complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) private nuisance by encroachment of tree branches, (2) private nuisance by encroachment of tree roots, (3) tortious injury to real property, (4) conversion, (5) negligence, (6) negligence per se, (7) trespass by encroachment of tree branches, and (8) trespass by encroachment of tree roots.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $900,000.   

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions and dismissal of the action.  Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this Court’s January 19, 2023 order granting Defendants’ motions to compel answers without objections to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.  The Court also ordered monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,440 which Plaintiff has not paid. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 permits courts to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. Section 2023.010 provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that is considered misuse of the discovery process, including as relevant here, failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d), (g).)  

Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subdivision (d) gives courts the authority to issue a terminating sanction by one of four following orders: (1) an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in misuse of the discovery process; (2) an order staying further proceedings until an order for discovery is obeyed; (3) an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party; or (4) an order rendering a default judgment against that party.  

In determining whether to impose terminating sanctions, trial courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of informal and formal attempts to obtain the discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App,4th 1225, 1246.) 

The trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for abuse. (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1293; Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928–929.)  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.” (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 36.) 

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.  “Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 487.)  If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted; continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this Court’s January 19, 2023 order compelling responses without objections to Defendants’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production of documents and granting Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.  Plaintiffs have not explained their failure to comply, and accordingly, the Court can only treat the failure as willful.  An order compelling the responses and an award of monetary sanctions have not curbed Plaintiffs’ discovery abuses.  Therefore, a harsher sanction is warranted.   

“[C]ourts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390¿(quoting¿Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1244-46); see also 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).) 

Accordingly, given Plaintiffs’ history of failing to comply with their discovery obligations, their willful failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order, their failure to even oppose this motion for terminating sanctions, and the fact that less severe sanctions have not served to curb their discovery abuses, the Court concludes that terminating sanctions are warranted.     

CONCLUSION 

   Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions and for dismissal of the action.    

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: April 27, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court