On February 1, 2018, plaintiff Jaleel Melendez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Pinetree Terrace Apartments and Mabry Management Co., Inc. (“Mabry”) for injuries arising from a slip and fall. Plaintiff alleges that on June 12, 2017, he slipped and fell on a liquid substance on the common area staircase.  

On May 31, 2019 Defendant Pinetree Terrace Apartments changed its organization to Pinetree Investments, LLC (“Pinetree”). 

On December 20, 2022, the Court granted Pinetree and Mabry’s (collectively, Defendants”) motion to deem admitted Defendants’ Requests for Admission against Plaintiff.  In granting Defendants’ motion, the Court imposed sanctions upon Plaintiff in the amount of $235.00 to be paid within 20 days of the date of the Order.  To date, Plaintiff has not paid the sanctions. 

Defendants now move for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as a terminating sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s December 20, 2022 Order.  The motion is unopposed.  

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)¿ The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)¿ Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)¿ A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)¿ 

 Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules.¿ (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)¿ 

Defendants are not entitled to an order granting terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.  The sole basis for Defendants’ motion is Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s Order to pay a monetary sanction.  The Court may impose terminating sanctions against anyone engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)¿ Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)¿ Here, Plaintiff violated the Court’s order to pay monetary sanctions within a specified time.  Defendants do not show Plaintiff has engaged in repeated violations of court orders.  There is no authority, and Defendants do not cite to any, for the proposition that a court may issue a terminating sanction by dismissing a Complaint for failure to obey one court order to pay monetary sanctions.   

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.  

Moving parties to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.¿ Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.¿ Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.¿ If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.¿