Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV00535, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00535    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-26-24

Case #23CHCV00535 , Milad Nowrozani vs. Anthony Chiang, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Milad Nowrozani

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

For the Court to enter order for terminating sanctions, striking Chiang’s answer, and entering default.

RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Milad Nowrozani (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Anthony Chiang (Defendant) and other defendants on February 24, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant tricked Plaintiff into wiring him $28,000.00. Plaintiff believed that he was getting an Audemars Piguet watch, but Defendant never delivered the watch to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff now believes that the watch never existed.

Defendant filed an answer in pro per on April 4, 2023. Since then, Plaintiff argues in his motion that Defendant has not participated in discovery or otherwise participated in litigation. On July 7, 2023, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions be deemed admitted and ordered Defendant to pay $250.00 in sanctions. Defendant did not oppose the motion or appear at that hearing. On September 14, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and pay $250.00 in sanctions. Defendant also did not oppose that motion or appear at that hearing. On September 21, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and pay $250.00 in sanctions. Once again, Defendant did not oppose that motion or appear at the hearing.

For each motion, Defendant did not oppose the motion, appear at the hearing, or subsequently serve responses or pay the ordered sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel also represents that he has received no communications from Chiang at any point in time.

On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for terminating sanctions because of Defendant’s failure to obey the Court’s orders to respond to the discovery or pay the sanctions. Plaintiff argues that terminating sanctions are appropriate because less severe monetary sanctions have been ineffective. Defendant has not filed any opposition to this motion.

ANALYSIS

It is a misuse of the discovery process to fail to respond or submit to an authorized form of discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) It is also a misuse of the discovery process to disobey a court order to provide discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(g).) “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method…, the court, after notice to any affected party . . . and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: (d) […] a terminating sanction […].” (CCP § 2023.030(d).) The terminating sanction may: (1) strike out the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process; and/or (2) render a judgment by default against that party. (CCP § 2023.030(d)(1), (4).)

“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.) “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.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 279-280.)

Defendant has failed to participate in the litigation in any meaningful way since he filed his answer. He failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. He did not oppose Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery or appear at the hearings on the motions. He disobeyed the Court orders compelling him to provide responses to the discovery. He failed to pay the monetary sanctions that the Court imposed against him for each of the three motions. Defendant has also not filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions.

Based on the foregoing, it appears that Defendant has no intention of further participation in this litigation. Terminating sanctions are appropriate.