Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 30, 2022

21STCV13221

Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Miguel Perez

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in April 2019. Plaintiff Merlita Moreno filed her Complaint against Miguel Perez on April 7, 2021.

On October 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel discovery.

On November 30, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss.

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s October 12, 2022 order compelling discovery responses by failing to serve responses and pay sanctions as ordered.

None.

If a party engages in the misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides, in relevant part, that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: … (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” 

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)  

“Generally, ‘[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.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)   

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed (by striking the defendant’s Answer and subsequently granting default judgment) after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery]; Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 [terminating sanctions imposed against the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].) 

Defendant argues that the Court may dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order compelling discovery responses and the payment of sanctions to Defendant. 

The Court may grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s October 12, 2022 order is preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would produce compliance with the discovery rules. According to the October 12, 2022 minute order, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests even after Defendant reminded Plaintiff of the June 6, 2022 deadline and extended the time to respond to July 22, 2022. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motion to compel discovery, did not appear at the hearing on that motion, and does not oppose the instant motion for terminating sanctions. It appears Plaintiff is no longer interested in litigating this action. 

Plaintiff has never responded to Defendant’s discovery requests or paid sanctions despite the October 12, 2022 order. (Lee, Decl., ¶7.) Therefore, the Court finds terminating sanctions proper. Although Defendant also requests evidentiary sanctions, this request is moot because the Court grants the request for terminating sanctions.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.290, subd. (c), which provides that a court may grant monetary sanctions in lieu of or in addition to nonmonetary sanctions if a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery requests. The Court declines to impose further monetary sanctions.