Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 19STLC01908, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC01908    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiff FML Management Corp.’s Motions for Terminating Sanctions against Cross-Complainants David Alvarado and Silvia Herrera is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

I.                   MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This conduct include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

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.)  Dismissal is a drastic measure, and terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective.  (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.)  “[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.)

Plaintiff FML Management moves for terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions against Cross-Complainants David Alverado and Silvia Herrera. Plaintiff argues that Cross-Complainants have failed to comply with this order by providing responses or paying the sanctions directed. (Ebel Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.) Plaintiff seeks an order of terminating sanctions, or alternatively an order preventing Cross-Complainants from presenting any facts, persons, or damages in relation to their claims. (Motion at p. 7.) Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks $1,460.00 in monetary sanctions, representing seven hours of attorney work at $200 per hour plus a $60 filing fee. (Ebel Decl. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant failed to comply with this court’s prior discovery order. Cross-Complainants have failed to file an opposition to this motion.

The motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.