Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCL05720, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCL05720    Hearing Date: April 7, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant’s answer is hereby stricken. 

On 8/30/2022, Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Ojogho American Enterprises, Inc. dba Soccer Shop USA (Defendant), seeking injunctive relief.

On 2/21/2025, Plaintiffs moved for sanctions against Defendant.

Discussion

            Plaintiffs seek the following:

First, Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a sanction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(b) and/or 2023.030(c) and deem all Requests for Admission, served on January 15, 2025, to have been admitted by Defendant.

Second, if the above request for admissions is granted, Plaintiffs then ask the Court to impose a terminating sanction under Section 2023.030(d)(4) and award judgment in full to Plaintiffs.

            Notably, the Court already granted an earlier unopposed motion for sanctions brought by Plaintiff based on Defendant’s failure to comply with this Court’s 4/18/2024 Order to provide responses to initial discovery within 30 days.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2030.030, a propounding party may bring a motion for monetary, issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions against any party that is engaging in misconduct in the discovery process. “Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of a discovery sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply, and (2) the failure must be wilful [sic].” (Valencia v. Mendoza (2024) 103 Cal. App. 5th 427, 447, review denied (Oct. 16, 2024) (citing Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 1525, 1545 and Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1202, 1214–15.)

Here, Defendant has now violated not only one, but two orders of this Court. Defendant has also failed to pay any of the ordered sanctions. As of this date, Plaintiffs “have not received a single iota of discovery from Defendant, despite nearly a year-and-a-half of attempts to meet and confer, to settle the case, and even despite multiple Court orders and punishing sanctions.” (Motion, 6: 19-23.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant is either unwilling or unable to litigate this action, and a terminating sanction is appropriate. However, the Court finds the appropriate sanction to be striking Defendant’s answer. Plaintiff can then seek the entry of default and pursue default judgment.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted. Defendant’s answer is hereby stricken. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.