Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC01262, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC01262    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, April 08, 2024

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARIA ESTELA GONZALEZ aka MARIA ROBLES, PV HOLDING CORP., and DOES 1 to 10

Case No.:                                23STLC01262

Motion:                                   Motion for Order for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions in the Total Amount of $2,220.00

Moving Party:                         Defendant PV Holding Corp.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant P.V. Holding Corp’s Motion for Order for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on February 21, 2023, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant P.V. Holding Corp. 

Defendant P.V. Holding Corp’s request for further monetary sanctions is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

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

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

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 25, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 29, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a subrogation action against Defendants Maria Estela Gonzalez aka Maria Robles (“Gonzalez”), and P.V. Holding Corp. (“P.V. Holding Corp.”) (collectively “Defendants”).

On April 6, 2023, Defendant P.V. Holding Corp filed its answer to the complaint.

On October 27, 2023, Defendant P.V. Holding Corp. filed a motion for the Court to deem its Request for Admissions, Set One, as admitted as well as other discovery motions to compel responses to its Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production. The Court granted P.V. Holding Corp.’s discovery motions and issued sanctions in the amount of $1,080.00 against the Plaintiff.

On February 01, 2024, Defendant P.V. Holding Corp filed the instant Motion for Order for Terminating Sanctions and Request for and Monetary Sanctions in the Total Amount of $2,220.00.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Defendant P.V. Holding Corp. prays for the Court to issue an order for monetary, terminating, and contempt sanctions against Plaintiff under C.C.P. § 2023.030 (a), (d) (1), (3) & (4), and (e). P.V. Holding Corp. argues that the motion is proper as Plaintiff violated the Court’s December 7, 2023, Order, by not serving verified, objection free, responses to P.V. Holding Corp.’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One as well as not complying with the Court’s order to pay $1,080.00 in monetary sanctions. P.V. Holding Corp. requests that monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,220.00 be entered against Plaintiff and its counsel jointly and separately.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          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.) 

II.        Discussion

Defendant P.V. Holding Corp. moves for terminating sanctions, dismissing the action with prejudice or in the alternative for the Court to enter judgment by default against Plaintiff and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,220.00 for expenses incurred in bringing the instant Motion. (Mot. p. 9.) P.V. Holding Corp. argues that sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiff has failed to respond to serve verified, objection free, responses to P.V. Holding Corp.’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, even after the Court ordered Plaintiff to do so on December 7, 2023. (Id. p. 8.) Additionally, P.V. Holding Corp asserts that Plaintiff has failed to pay $1,080.00 as ordered by the Court.

P.V. Holding Corp provides the Court with the declaration of its Counsel who states that on December 7, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant to provide Plaintiff with full, complete, and objection free responses. (Gene S. Stone Decl. ¶ 9.) Counsel avers that to date Plaintiff has not complied with any aspect of the Court’s order and that there is no evidence to suggest that Plaintiff will change its position. (Id. ¶ 10.) P.V. Holding Corp argues that Plaintiff’s disobedience and disregard for the Court and the rules of civil procedure are intentional and willful. (Id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order. In failing to provide responses to P.V. Holding Corp’s discovery request, Plaintiff has obstructed P.V. Holding Corp.’s efforts to defend this action resulting in a misuse of the discovery process.

P.V. Holding Corp seeks $2,220.00 in monetary sanctions for five (5) hours of attorney time working on the motion, plus an anticipated one hour attending the hearing, at a rate of $180.00 per hour, in addition to $60.00 in costs. (Stone Decl. ¶ 12.) 

The Court notes that since filing its Complaint on February 21, 2023, Plaintiff has not responded to P.V. Holding Corp’s discovery requests, motions to compel discovery, or the instant motion for terminating sanctions. The Court further notes that default was entered against Defendant Gonzalez on March 04, 2023. (See. 03/04/24 Request for Entry of Default.)  Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any response showing that its actions were caused by inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith. Moreover, while terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the history of the instant case demonstrates that Plaintiff is unwilling to comply with P.V. Holding Corp’s requests or the Court’s orders and thus, lesser sanctions have not been effective in producing compliance. However, the Court fails to see a valid justification to dismiss the matter with prejudice as requested by P.V. Holding Corp. 

For these reasons, the Court finds an order dismissing the action without prejudice to be appropriate. Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 21, 2023, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

However, the Court declines to award further monetary sanctions as doing so would be futile in producing compliance. 

III.       Conclusion

Defendant P.V. Holding Corp’s Motion for Order for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on February 21, 2023, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant P.V. Holding Corp.          

Defendant P.V. Holding Corp’s request for further monetary sanctions is DENIED. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.