Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 19SMCV00273, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00273    Hearing Date: June 22, 2023    Dept: O

  Case Name:             Patel, et al. v. Ramo, LLC, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO DISMISS THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CROSS-COMPLAINANT NO. 1 BUCCANEER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AND TO STRIKE THE ANSWERS OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS NO. 1 BUCCANEER, TODD KOHN AND FRANK MADDOCKS FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER OF MARCH 9, 2023 AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST NO. 1 BUCCANEER, TODD KOHN, AND FRANK MADDOCKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,025

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant/X-Defendant/X-Complainant Ramo, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         None

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant/X-Defendant/X-Complainant Ramo, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss and Request for Sanctions is DENIED as to the requests to dismiss and strike the answers of X-Defendants No. 1 Buccaneer, Todd Kohn and Frank Maddocks and GRANTED as to the request for monetary sanctions. 

            Ramo, LLC moves to dismiss the cross-complaint of No. 1 Buccaneer and to strike the answers of No. 1 Buccaneer, Kohn and Maddocks as a discovery sanction.  Ramo, LLC essentially seeks terminating sanctions against these parties based on their failure to comply with the Court’s 3-9-23 order compelling further responses from them to Ramo’s RFPs and Form Interrogatories.

            No. 1 Buccaneer, Kohn and Maddocks’ failure to comply with the 3-9-23 is a single instance of discovery abuse.  Terminating sanctions should not be imposed under these circumstances.  Terminating sanctions should not be imposed lightly and a graduated imposition of sanctions should be used if possible. See Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280 (decision to impose terminating sanctions should not be made lightly but such sanctions are justified in cases of repeated discovery abuse and evidence that lesser sanctions will be ineffectual); Thomas v. Luong (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 76, 81–82; see also Morgan v. Ransom (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 664, 669 (incarcerated, indigent, pro per plaintiff's delay in serving responses insufficient to justify imposition of terminating sanctions where no prejudice demonstrated). Moreover, discovery sanctions are not intended to punish but to accomplish discovery. See Newland v. Supr. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613.

            Ramo, LLC requests that the Court impose evidentiary or issue sanctions if it declines to impose terminating sanctions.  However, the notice of motion does not include a request for evidentiary or issue sanctions, nor does it identify the specific evidence or issue Ramo would like to bar these Defendants from presenting or litigating.  “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” CCP §2023.040. 

            Ramo was also required under CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(7) to submit a separate statement identifying the requested evidentiary or issue sanctions.  Ramo failed to submit such a separate statement. 

            However, Ramo’s request for monetary sanctions based on the Defendants’ violation of the 3-9-23 order is proper.  Ramo requests sanctions in the amount of $1,025 (3 hours motion prep, 2 hours reply prep and hearing attendance at $205/hr, plus a $60 filing fee.)  No opposition was filed.  Sanctions are therefore awarded in the amount of $615 plus a $60 filing fee.