Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23NWLC00793, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWLC00793    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, February 26, 2024

Case Name:                             CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. v. RONNIE M. PEREZ, ET AL.

Case No.:                                23NWLC00793

Motion:                                   Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

Responding Party:                   None.

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Creditors Adjustments Bureau, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

Defendant Ronnie M. Perez aka Ronnie Perez aka Ron Perez dba Ron’s Concrete Construction dba Ron’s Construction’s Answer to the Complaint filed on 04/25/2023 is Stricken, AND Default against the Defendant is hereby entered.

Defendant is also ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $822.75 to be paid within 30 days from notice of this Court’s ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to electronically file Its Request for Entry of Default Judgment within 30 days from notice of this Court’s ruling.

An Order to Show Cause Re:  Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment is set for April 25, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Ronnie M. Perez aka Ronnie Perez aka Ron Perez dba Ron’s Concrete Construction dba Ron’s Construction (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Open Book Account; (3) Account Stated; and (4) Reasonable Value.

On April 25, 2023, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint.

On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection, and Copying of Documents (Set One).

On November 1, 2023, this Court granted both Plaintiff’s motions to compel and ordered Defendant to pay $822.75 within 30 days from notice of ruling.

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed this instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff asserts Defendant has failed to comply with any aspect of the Court’s November 1, 2023 Order. Plaintiff specifically contends Defendant has not produced any written responses, responsive documents, nor has he paid the sanctions. Plaintiff argues Defendant is blatantly refusing to fully participate in the litigation process, which supports a terminating sanction. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues the discovery at issue requested information essential to the prosecution of this action. Finally, Plaintiff contends pro per parties are not entitled to special treatment or considerations but are charged with the responsibility of understanding the law and rules of civil procedure if they choose to forego being represented by counsel.

OPPOSITION

None as of 2/21/24.

REPLY

None as of 2/21/24.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

A.    Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 provides that, “[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....” 

“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).) 

B.  Discussion

Motion

Here, Plaintiff moves for an order for terminating sanctions, striking Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint, entering default against Defendant, and monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,572.75 for reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred bringing this instant motion.

On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Other Tangible Things (Set One). (Brown Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant failed to provide responses to either sets of discovery and motions to compel were filed. (Id.)

On November 1, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Other Tangible Things (Set One). (11/1/23 Minute Order.) The Court ordered Defendant to provide code-complaint and objection-free responses and requested documents to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Other Tangible Things (Set One) within 20 days from notice of ruling. (Id. at ¶ 4) The Court also ordered Defendant to pay sanctions in the amount of $822.75 for each motion, totaling $1,645.50 within 30 days from notice of ruling. (Id.)

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Notice of Ruling of the November 1, 2023 Court Order indicating the notice was served on the Defendant on November 9, 2023.

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant has engaged in conduct that is an abuse of the discovery process. Defendant failed to obey the Court’s November 1, 2023 order to provide code-complaint and objection-free responses and requested documents to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Other Tangible Things (Set One) within 20 days from notice of ruling. Furthermore, Defendant has failed to pay the court ordered monetary sanctions in connection with the order granting the motions to compel discovery. 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 in the motions to compel, which resulted in present order at issue. Lastly, Defendant was served with notice of this instant motion and again did not file an opposition. Thus, it is clear from Defendant’s conduct he is disinterested in prosecuting this case.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests a total of $1,572.75 in monetary sanctions in connection with the filing of this instant motion at an hourly rate of $500.00 for (1) 1.5 hours preparing this motion; (2) 1.5 hours reviewing any opposition filed, preparing a reply brief, and attending the hearing; (3) $60.00 filing fee; and (4) $12.75 e-filing fees.

As no opposition and reply brief were filed in this case, the Court will impose a total of 1.5 hours for this present motion at an hourly rate of $500.00 plus $60.00 filing fee and $12.75  e-filing fee for a total sum of $822.75.

II.        Conclusion

            Accordingly, Plaintiff Creditor Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

            Defendant Ronnie M. Perez aka Ronnie Perez aka Ron Perez dba Ron’s Concrete Construction dba Ron’s Construction’s Answer to the Complaint filed on 04/25/2023 is Stricken AND Default against the Defendant is hereby entered.

Defendant is also ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $822.75 to be paid within 30 days from notice of this Court’s ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to electronically file Its Request for Entry of Default Judgment within 30 days from notice of this Court’s ruling.

AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re:  Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment is set for April 25, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.