Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00960, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00960    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Andrius Kantas (“Plaintiff”) allege that on November 22, 2020, he was operating a scooter owned by Defendant Neutron Holdings, Inc. (“NHI”) and Defendant Lime.  Plaintiff alleges that he was injured as a result of the failure of essential safety systems and poor maintenance of the scooter. 

The complaint, filed November 9, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability – design defect; (3) strict products liability – failure to warn; and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On November 21, 2023, Defendant NHI dba Lime (“Defendant”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.  On January 11, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition stating that it did not receive an opposition brief from Plaintiff. 

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 2023.030 permits the Court to impose terminating sanctions for discovery misuses, which are defined by CCP § 2023.010 to include the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery and the failure to comply with a Court discovery order. 

The Court weighs the following factors when considering the present motion: (1) defendants’ conduct, indicating whether their actions were willful; (2) the detriment to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the number of formal and informal unsuccessful attempts to obtain discovery.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for his failure to obey the Court’s October 13, 2023 order compelling Plaintiff to provide initial responses tp FROG, SROG, and RPD and to attend his deposition. 

            The following background founds are relevant to this motion.  On May 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s prior counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.  On October 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel initial responses and to compel Plaintiff to attend his deposition.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide initial responses within 20 days of notice of the Court’s order and to schedule a deposition within 25 days of the order.  Defense counsel contacted the legal coordinator of the prison where Plaintiff is located to inform him of the results of the October 13, 2023 hearing, and mailed and emailed the notice of entry of order to Plaintiff and the legal coordinator on October 16, 2023.  Defendant states that it confirmed with the legal coordinator that Plaintiff’s deposition would go forward on November 2, 2023 and the legal coordinator logged onto the Zoom link on that date, but Plaintiff chose not to participate in the deposition.  Defendant also argues that it is not in receipt of any written discovery responses. 

            Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and lack of opposition to the motion, it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this case.  Furthermore, Plaintiff was aware of his deposition but declined to attend though his legal coordinator signed onto the Zoom deposition meeting.  In light of Plaintiff’s conduct, there is no reason to believe that any lesser issue/evidentiary sanctions will force him to comply with his discovery obligations.  Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Neutron Holdings, Inc. dba Lime’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted.  The action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: January 19, 2024                                                     ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court