Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00216, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00216    Hearing Date: August 16, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      August 16, 2023                                  TRIAL DATE: September 19, 2023

CASE:                         SAMANTHA DANG v. DANIEL KLEIN; KEVIN BONN; MOLLY FAULKNER; RX INNOVATIONS, LLC dba KB ADVISORS; CANNECO CALIFORNIA LLC; and DOES 1-10. 

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV00216 

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Samantha Dang

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Kevin Bonn

SERVICE:                              Filed July 25, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed August 7, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed August 9, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Daniel Klein.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff Samantha Dang’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that she was fraudulently induced to make an investment in a cannabis investment scheme. Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2018, she entered into a contract with Defendant Daniel Klein (“Klein”), a co-owner of Defendant RX Innovations, LLC dba KB Advisors (“KB”), where she invested $329,206 in exchange for 35% of net profit for certain cannabis cultivation crops. Plaintiff alleges she never received the promised profits from the agreement, any documentation, photos, or inspection of the venture, or any reimbursement.  

Plaintiff filed this complaint on February 16, 2021, against Klein, Kevin Bonn (“Bonn”), Molly Faulkner (“Faulkner”), KB, and Canneco California LLC (“Canneco”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging six causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) conversion, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) negligence, (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (6) accounting.  

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling a discovery response, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290,¿subd. (c) (interrogatories); Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300,¿subd. (c) (demands for production of documents).)  

Section 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions against ‘anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.’ ” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Id. at p. 992.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Klein. This motion is based on Klein’s failure to respond to this court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses, which was granted on March 8, 2023.

            A preliminary issue presented by this case is whether Bonn may challenge Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. Plaintiff contends that Bonn lacks standing to challenge the issue and evidentiary sanctions. However, it is unclear how the two cases cited by Plaintiff stand for the proposition that only Klein may challenge the sanctions. In fact, Plaintiff seeks issue sanctions establishing facts related to Bonn in addition to Klein.

            “The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (b).)

            At this juncture, the appropriate action is to grant Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions prohibiting Klein from submitting:

(1)   evidence to dispute the authenticity and validity of the contract with Plaintiff,

 AND

(2)   any evidence in opposition to Plaintiff’s claim for damages.

Establishing issues based on Klein’s failure to respond would be unduly prejudicial to other Defendants who have not violated the discovery act in the present case.

            Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions is granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions is granted.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   August 16, 2023                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court