Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV23508, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23508    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

            Defendant Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendant Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.

            On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Ghazar Shabazyan and Gold Point Towing Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Defendants Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company (Berkshire), Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (Redwood), Coverhound LLC dba Coverhound Insurance Solutions (Coverhound), and DOES 1-50 (collectively, Defendants) alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) insurance broker negligence.

            Redwood moves for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,800.00 against Plaintiff.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.030, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method..., the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose... [monetary, evidence, and terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process....” Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:... (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.... (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery....” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030.)

“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. Hachman (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.” (Id. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244- 1246); see, e.g., Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed 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. McCucchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)   

Discussion

            On May 17, 2023, Redwood served Plaintiff Gold Point Towing, Inc. with its Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One). (Yu Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff failed to provide responses to either sets of discovery by the due date of June 21, 2023. (Id.) On July 27, 2023, Redwood’s counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting that Plaintiff provide verified responses to the written discovery without objection. (Id., at ¶ 3.) No responses were received and Redwood filed two motions to compel Plaintiff’s Responses to the sets of discovery on October 20, 2023 and Request for Admission motion October 24, 2023. (Id., at ¶ 4.)

            On November 20, 2023, this Court heard Redwood’s motions to compel. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition and did not appear at the hearing. This Court granted the motions to compel and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses and documents without objections within 30 days of the order or by December 20, 2023. (Yu Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.)

            On December 10, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to Redwood’s Request for Admissions. (Id., at ¶ 6, Ex. B.) On December 15, 2023, this Court ruled that Redwood’s Request for Admission motion was moot in light of the responses being served but ordered Plaintiff pay sanctions within 30 days from the order for failing to timely respond and necessitating the filing of the motion. (Id.)

            On December 22, 2023, Redwood informed Plaintiff’s counsel that it would file a motion for sanctions after not receiving any responses and sanctions as ordered by this Court. (Id., at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded on the same day indicating he would “get this in your inbox.” (Id.) Redwood still has not received any responses, documents, or payment of sanctions. (Id.)

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in conduct that constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s November 20, 2023 and December 15, 2023 orders to provide verified responses and documents without objections, and pay sanctions within 30 days of the orders. As such, it appears imposing less severe sanctions in the form of issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions against Plaintiff would not produce compliance. Additionally, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motions to compels and Request for Admission motion, which resulted in the present orders at issue. Lastly, Plaintiff was served with notice of this instant motion and again did not file an opposition. Thus, it is clear from Plaintiff’s conduct that they are disinterested in  prosecuting this case against Redwood.

In light of the foregoing, the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendant Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March 27, 2024

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.