Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

 

JINHEE CHO,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WOO YEON LEE, et al.,

Defendants. Case No.: 21STCV31582

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANTS WONYEON LEE AND HYUN JOHN OH

Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.

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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND  

This is an action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to form a partnership to purchase property. Defendant engaged in self-dealing by occupying the property and paying no rent, refusing to disclose financial information, and excluding Plaintiff from all business activities and decisions. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff Jinhee Cho in pro per filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract.

On January 7, 2022, Woo Yeon Lee filed an answer.  

On October 5, 2022, after obtaining counsel, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On November 15, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

In August 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery.

On October 5, 2023, Defendants filed this motion for terminating sanctions.

DISCUSSION 

Defendants move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.

“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].) 

Here, the Court granted Defendants’ five motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery in August 2023. The discovery requests were originally propounded in November 2022. (See August 2023 orders compelling discovery.) Plaintiff failed to serve responses despite court orders compelling her to serve responses. (Oh Decl., ¶6.) Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to Defendants’ counsel’s communications on the matter. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) 

Plaintiff has now failed to comply with five court orders compelling her to respond to Defendant’s written discovery requests. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ communications regarding discovery. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with five court orders demonstrates a history of 

abuse. Less severe sanctions, specifically monetary sanctions, have not been effective in inducing Plaintiff to comply with discovery rules. Therefore, terminating sanctions are granted.

DATED: March 5, 2024

________________________________ 

       Hon. Jill Feeney 

       Judge of the Superior Court