Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC01524 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC01524, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC01524 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTIONS FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2023.010, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 22, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 22, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff Juan Manuel Duarte (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence. The action arose out of an alleged automobile accident that took place on or around February 14, 2018, between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand.

On August 13, 2021, the date set for Non-Jury Trial, the Court noted that Defendant had not been served, vacated the Non-Jury Trial, and set Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Re: Failure to File Proof of Service/Dismissal for October 20, 2021. (8-13-21 Minute Order.) The Court was also informed by Plaintiff’s counsel that he intended to file a motion to be relieved as counsel. (Ibid.) On October 20, 2021, based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that he had lost contact with Plaintiff and intended to serve Defendant, the Court continued the OSC. (10-20-21 Minute Order.)

Defendant was served by substituted service and filed an Answer to the Complaint on January 11, 2022. (11-15-21 Proof of Service.)

On March 24, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Counsel, Ara Aroustamian’s, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (3-24-22 Minute Order.)

On August 23, 2022, Defendant filed three Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents. On October 31, 2022, the Court granted all three Motions, and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified answer, without objections, to each discovery request, within fourteen (14) days of notice of the Court’s order. (10-31-22 Minute Order.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $435.00 for each Motion, for a total sum of $1,305.00. (Ibid.)

On February 24, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions (“Motion”). No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), (g), 2023.030; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.040 requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Furthermore, the notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.040.)

Monetary sanctions may be imposed “ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct…unless [the Court] finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(a).)

Issue sanctions may be imposed “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 of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(b).)

Evidence sanctions may be imposed “by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(c).)

In more extreme cases, the Court may also impose terminating sanctions by “striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings,” “staying further proceedings,” “dismissing the action, or any part of the action,” or “rending a judgment by default” against the party misusing the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(d).) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (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; Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

In City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, the Court ruled that Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030 list the available discovery sanctions but do not independently authorize a court to impose specific sanctions. (PriceewaterhouseCoopers (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 503-504.) Thus, a court’s authority to impose the sanctions specified in §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030 must arise from a statute governing a particular method of discovery. (Ibid.)

III. Discussion

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions, including dismissal of “Plaintiffs’ action entirely and/or part thereof” for abuse of discovery, failure to respond to Court ordered discovery, and failure to pay monetary sanctions. (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

On January 11, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form and Special Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents. (Mot. p. 3.) Responses were due on February 10, 2022; however, Defendant granted Plaintiff’s former counsel extensions until March 14, 2022, and subsequently until April 13, 2022. (Ibid.) On March 24, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, leaving Plaintiff to represent himself. (Ibid.; 3-24-22 Minute Order.) On April 1, 2022, Defendant mailed the discovery requests directly to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Defense counsel followed up with Plaintiff on April 13, 18, and 25, 2022, through text messages and mail, in English and in Spanish, but did not receive any response. (Ibid.) As a result, Defendant filed Motions to Compel on August 23, 2022. (Ibid. at p. 4.) On October 31, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel and ordered Plaintiff “to provide verified responses, without objections, to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for inspection of documents within fourteen days.” (Mackey Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff was also ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,305.00. (Ibid.) On November 3, 2022, defense counsel’s office served Plaintiff with a Notice of the Court’s Ruling. (Ibid.; 11-3-22 Notice of Ruling.)

According to Defendant, to date, Plaintiff has not produced any responses to discovery, has disobeyed the Court’s order to submit verified responses and pay sanctions, and has not been available for deposition. (Mackey Decl. ¶ 3.) Due to Plaintiff’s actions, Defendant has been prevented from “any reasonable opportunity to litigate or achieve progress in its case.” (Ibid. at ¶ 4.) Defendant argues that “Plaintiff should not be permitted to continue his action in this court” because he “has refused to provide Defendant even the most basic evidence to support their claims.” (Mot. p. 5.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290 governs the imposition of sanctions in regard to failure to respond to interrogatories. Section 2030.290(c) states that:

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c), emphasis added.)

Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300 governs the imposition of sanctions in regard to failure to respond to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. Section 2031.300(c) states:

… the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c), emphasis added.)

Based on §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c), the Court has authority to impose any of the sanctions specified in § 2030.030.

In determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate in the instant case, the Court considers the totality of the circumstances, including whether there has been a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.

The Court finds that Plaintiff initiated the action more than three years ago. Throughout the litigation, Defendant and Plaintiff’s former counsel have been unable to establish communication with Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion and has not presented any justification for his discovery order violation and history of abuse of the discovery process. The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate Plaintiff’s unwillingness to prosecute the lawsuit and comply with discovery orders.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate at this point in this matter. Given that both Defendant and Plaintiff’s former counsel have been unable to reach Plaintiff and Plaintiff has failed to pay monetary sanctions, as ordered by the Court on October 31, 2022, the Court does not find that lesser sanctions, such as monetary sanctions, will motivate Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests and Court orders.

For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.