Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC07685, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC07685     Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENCE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Joaquin Hernandez

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants Dentas, Inc.

MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENCE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2023.010, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on Plaintiff Hernandez’s Motion for Sanctions is CONTINUED to NOVEMBER 16, 2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.  Defendant Dentas, Inc. is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues noted herein at least 9 court days before the scheduled hearing.  Thereafter, Plaintiff is ordered to file a responsive briefing within 5 court days before the scheduled hearing.

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:          Filed on September 13, 2022                            [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 26, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff Joaquin Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Dentas, Inc. (“Dentas”) and Farooq Ghias (“Ghias”), (collectively “Defendants”), for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.  The action arose out of an alleged violation of the Act by a restaurant allegedly operated by Defendants.  (See Compl.)

On January 7, 2022, Defendants, through their counsel, filed a joint Answer.

On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice to Attend Trial, demanding that Defendant Ghias attend the trial scheduled for April 25, 2023.

On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Dentas’s Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One.  The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and his request for sanctions in the amount of $500.00.  (4-19-22 Minute Order.)

On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Evidence, Issue, and Monetary Sanctions against Defendant Dentas.  Defendant Dentas filed an Opposition to the Motion on September 13, 2022.  No reply 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.)  “[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.)

III.            Discussion

Here, Plaintiff seeks 1) monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,000.00, 2) issue sanctions that establish that Defendant “Dentas, Inc. owned and operated the restaurant at 18932 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91351 on August 28, 2021,” and 3) evidence sanctions prohibiting Defendant from “introducing any evidence contrary to that established fact.”  (Mot. p. 1.)

Plaintiff argues that on April 19, 2022, the Court ordered Defendant Dentas to answer the first set of special interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff.  (4-19-22 Minute Order; Mot. p. 4; Mehrban Decl. ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff served Defendant with the order on April 21, 2022.  (4-26-22 Notice; Mot. p. 4.)  Plaintiff did not receive the ordered answers, so he contacted Defendant through his counsel, informing of his intention to file the instant Motion if no responses were provided.  (Mot. p. 4; Mehrban Decl. ¶ 5 – Ex. B.)  As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has not provided any verified answers to the special interrogatories.  (Ibid.; Mehrban Decl. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff states that the special interrogatories “sought to confirm that Defendant was an owner/operator of the restaurant at 18932 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91351 on August 28, 2021.”  (Mot. p. 4; Mehrban Decl. ¶ 4 – Ex. A.)  Thus, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant his request for issue sanctions establishing this fact and prohibit Defendant from introducing evidence contrary to this fact.  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff also requests that the Court order Defendant Dentas to pay $1,000 in monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process.  (Mehrban Decl. ¶ 7.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that he has been a California-licensed attorney since 1993 and his billing rate is $500 per hour.  (Ibid.)  He requests $1000 for a total of two (2) hours of preparing the instant Motion and appearing at the hearing on the Motion.  (Ibid.)

            Defendants Dentas opposes Plaintiff’s Motion on the grounds that the Motion “is moot, and the relief sought excessive.”  (Oppos. p. 2.)  First, Defendant argues that it responded to the special interrogatories on April 5, 2022, without any objections.  (Ibid.)  Following the Court’s order, Defendant served Plaintiff with the verification that corresponded to the responses to special interrogatories as well as a check paying the sanctions.  (Ibid.)  Defendant argues that the responses to the interrogatories state that “Defendant Dentas, Inc. was the operator of the subject restaurant on August 28, 2021,” and thus no issue, evidentiary, or monetary sanctions are warranted.  (Ibid.)  Defendant also refers to an allegedly identical matter filed by Plaintiff’s relative through Plaintiff’s counsel against Defendant; however, that case is not relevant to the instant Motion.  (Ibid. at pp. 2-3.)

            The Court finds that additional information is necessary to determine whether issue, evidence, and monetary sanctions are warranted in this matter.  Defendant Dentas is ordered to file additional proof that verified responses were served on Plaintiff prior to the filing of the instant Motion, including a sworn declaration from its counsel.  Thereafter, Plaintiff is ordered to submit supplemental filing in response to Defendant’s Opposition and additional proof to demonstrate why sanctions are appropriate.

IV.           Conclusion & Order 

For the foregoing reasons,

The hearing on the Plaintiff Hernandez’s Motion for Sanctions is CONTINUED to NOVEMBER 16, 2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.  Defendant Dentas, Inc. is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues noted herein at least 9 court days before the scheduled hearing.  Thereafter, Plaintiff is ordered to file a responsive briefing within 5 court days before the scheduled hearing.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.