Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCP00298, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCP00298    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

MOVING PARTY:                    Respondent Chad Padilla

RESPONDING PARTY:         Petitioner State Bar of California

BACKGROUND

            This case arises from Respondent Chad Padilla’s allegedly unauthorized practice of law.  Petitioner State Bar of California alleges that Respondent has never been a licensee of the State Bar of California but has deliberately misled clients, judges, and the public into believing that he is entitled to represent and assist pro per litigants and perform legal services on their behalf. 

This hearing is on Respondent’s motion for terminating sanctions and an order dismissing the petition with prejudice.  Respondent seeks terminating sanctions because he claims that even after repeated requests for extensions, Petitioner has failed to adequately respond to his discovery requests.  Further, Respondent argues that the Court should dismiss the petition because it has been brought “frivolously, fraudulently and without legal or evidentiary support.”                   

LEGAL STANDARD

In extreme cases, the Court may impose terminating sanctions by “striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings,” “staying further proceedings,” “dismissing the action, or any part of the action,” or “rending a judgment by default” against the party misusing the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.030(d).)  The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77¿Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196¿Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)  “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure, a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.”  (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605 (citations omitted).) 

DISCUSSION

            Respondent seeks terminating sanctions because it claims Petitioner’s responses were “objections without justification.”  However, Respondent has not identified the specific requests at issue or the specific responses that are deficient, or explained why the responses are deficient.  On these facts, the Court concludes less severe alternatives, including an order to compel further responses, would be more appropriate than the extreme remedy of terminating sanctions.  Respondent should schedule an informal discovery conference, and if that fails, may file a motion to compel further responses with a joint statement identifying the number of the discovery request, the text of the discovery request, the text of the response, and brief bullet-point statements, one from each party, as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.    

Respondent also argues that a dismissal with prejudice is warranted because the petition was brought forward “frivolously, fraudulently, and without legal or evidentiary support.”  Respondent argues that “the law is clear that a person may practice law without a license as long as he/she is authorized to do so by statute or court rule (court mean [sic] a judge).”  Respondent notes no judge has ever sanctioned him for the unauthorized practice of law despite knowing that he was assisting pro per litigants, and this fact was known to Petitioner at the time it filed the petition.  Respondent’s arguments are best evaluated in the context of a motion for summary judgment, not a motion for terminating sanctions.  If he wishes, Respondent may file a motion for summary judgment, in conformity with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §437c(b)(1), including filing a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which Respondent contends are undisputed.       

CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Respondent’s motion for terminating sanctions and for an order for entry of judgment of dismissal with prejudice.     

DATED:  January 10, 2023                                                  ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court