Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00338, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00338 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: April
27, 2023 TRIAL DATE: November 14, 2023
CASE: GIOVANNI VILLEGAS,
an individual, RUTH ZHOU, an individual, v. CITEA DRINKS, a California
corporation, and WEI ZHANG, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00338
MOTION
FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Giovanni Villegas
RESPONDING PARTY: No
response filed.
SERVICE: Filed February 23, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves for
monetary sanctions and terminating sanctions against Wei Zhang.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs
Giovanni Villegas (“Villegas”) and Ruth Zhou’s (“Zhou”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) employment law claims against Defendants CiTea Drinks and Wei
Zhang (“Defendants”). Villegas worked as a cashier for Defendants beginning on
or about July 1, 2021, and Zhou worked as a bobarista and shift lead for
Defendants starting around May 2021. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid
through cash transfers and failed to provide a single paystub. Plaintiffs
allege that they were never compensated certain hours they worked. Zhou alleges
she suffered from sexual harassment and sexual orientation harassment while
employed by Defendants.
Plaintiffs filed this case on June
7, 2022, alleging thirteen causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum
wages, (2) failure to furnish wage statements, (3) failure to maintain payroll
records, (4) failure to pay wages in a timely manner, (5) waiting time
penalties, (6) unfair competition, (7) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (8)
hostile work environment harassment, (9) retaliation, (10) wrongful termination
in violation of public policy, (11) FEHA violation based upon retaliation, (12)
failure to pay overtime compensation, and (13) FEHA violations based upon
sexual harassment.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s
requests for monetary sanctions totaling $7,565.00 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
requests for terminating sanctions is denied.
The court will discuss appropriate evidentiary and/sanctions at the
hearing.
LEGAL STANDARD
“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.)
Code of Civil Procedure section
2023.030, subdivision (d) provides that a court may impose terminating
sanctions by one of the following orders: “(1) An order striking out the
pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the
discovery process. [¶] (2) An order
staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is
obeyed. [¶] (3) An order
dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. [¶] (4) An order rendering a
judgment by default against that party.”
“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.” (Mileikowsky
v. Tenent Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280 “Mileikowsky”.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions
against Defendant. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions totaling $7,565.00 for
this motion as well as an entry of default judgment against Defendant.
Plaintiff
provides he initially served discovery requests on August 1, 2022. (Lacour
Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provides that
Defendant served defective responses on September 23, 2022. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff
provides that the parties conferred about the deficiencies in the responses,
extensions, and a possible settlement of the case. (Id. ¶ 4-8.) On November
29, 2022, both Defendants filed a substitution of attorney and represented they
would represent themselves despite the fact that CiTea Drink could not
represent itself and Zhang is not licensed to represent CiTea Drinks.
Plaintiff provides that Defendant failed to provide any supplemental
responses or further communications after the substitution of attorney. (Lacour
Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses which was
heard and granted on January 26, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel provides that
despite efforts to communicate with Defendant, including visiting Defendant’s
location as listed on the Secretary of State, he has not received any
communication from Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 13-17.)
Plaintiff has provided that he has not received any
communication from Defendant since Defendant filed a substitution of attorney
on November 29, 2022, despite repeated efforts to meet and confer regarding the
discovery requests pending. Defendant has ignored this court’s order to provide
further responses and pay monetary sanctions by completely ignoring Plaintiff.
For the above reasons the Plaintiff is seeking terminating
sanctions. However, Plaintiff may
be wise to consider the trope, ‘be careful what you wish for because you may
get it.’ Their pleadings fail
to advise the Defendant of his potential exposure. This would be necessary before a court could
enter default judgement in their favor, Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 823. Therefore,
unless the Plaintiff wishes to serve an amended complaint or a statement of
damages on the Defendant the court will discuss other appropriate sanctions at
the hearing.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s
requests for monetary sanctions totaling $7,565.00 is GRANTED.
Additional
appropriate issue and evidentiary sanctions to be discussed at the hearing.
Dated: April 27, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court