Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV39761, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39761    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 56

CASE NO.: 20STCV39761
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Date: September 22, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. 56

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.,
Plaintiff,
 vs. REDL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an alleged debt. Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) open book account; (2) account stated; (3) reasonable value; (4) breach of contract; and (5) personal guaranty. On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant Rafael Quinonez (“Quinonez”) (the “Motion”) seeking to striking Quinonez’s answer to the Complaint and entering default against him.

DISCUSSION

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) 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. (Id.) Continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. (Id.) Where discovery violations are willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. (Id.) A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally a prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions. (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) Absent unusual circumstances, there generally must be: (1) a failure to comply with a court order; and (2) the failure must be willful. (Id.) A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702.) Where a trial court imposes a terminating sanction, a trial court can strike out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (Id. at 1701.) 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 & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-05.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff presents evidence that on May 3, 2022, the Court granted two motions to compel discovery responses (the “Motions to Compel”) and ordered Quinonez to provide answers within 20 days and pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,156.70. (Declaration of Kenneth J. Freed (“Freed Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions, which the Court denied on June 27, 2022. (Freed Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court’s June 27, 2022 order indicated that it would consider granting a later motion for terminating sanctions if Quinonez continued his pattern of unresponsiveness to Plaintiff’s discovery requests or compliance with the Court’s orders. As of the filing of the Motion, Quinonez had still not complied with the Court’s May 3, 2022 order.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted at this time due to Quinonez’s repeated noncompliance with the Court’s orders. For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $1,877.85 in sanctions for costs incurred in relation to the Motion. (Freed Decl. ¶ 8.) This amount represents: (1) three hours of attorney time, which includes preparing the Motion and traveling to the hearing at an hourly rate of $600 per hour; and (2) $77.85 in filing fees. (Id.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the total amount of $677.85, which represents one hour of work preparing the Motion at a rate of $600 per hour and $77.85 in filing fees. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Quinonez is ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adete precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 22nd day of September 2022

_____________
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court