Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV39725, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 16, 2024

Case Name: Amaro, et al. v. Hwy 111 Hotel Group, LP, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV10762

Matter: Motion for Terminating Sanctions 

Moving Party: Defendant Rosecrans Avenue Property, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On October 25, 2023, the Court granted motions to compel discovery responses by Rosecrans Avenue Property, LLC directed at Plaintiff Adrian Pulido.

Defendant Rosecrans Avenue Property, LLC now seeks terminating, evidence, issue, and/or monetary sanctions against the aforementioned Plaintiff because he never provided discovery responses pursuant to the Court’s order.

“California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for conduct amounting to ‘misuse of the discovery process.’ ” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.)  Misuses of the discovery process include “[u]sing a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(b)); “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” (id., subd. (d)); “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery” (id., subd. (f)); and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” (id., subd. (g).)

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions against “anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.”  In selecting the appropriate sanction, a trial court “should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery,” and should tailor the sanction to fit the harm caused by the abuse of the discovery process.  (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.)  “The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.”  (Ibid.)

A terminating sanction “is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court’s authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative.”  (Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331 [concerning dismissal for a plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with discovery]; see also Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80 [“[W]here 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.”].)

Because Plaintiff failed to file any opposition, it seems that he does not wish to participate in the discovery process.  Therefore, the Court will enter terminating sanctions—the pleadings of Adrian Pulido are stricken with respect to Defendant.  The Court will not award additional monetary sanctions.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.