Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC03294, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC03294 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Thursday, March 14, 2024
Case Name: WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC v. ASIF IQBAL
Case No.: 23STLC03294
Motion: Motion for Terminating Sanctions by Striking Defendant’s Answer, to Enter Default and for Monetary Sanctions against Asif Iqbal in the Total Amount of $2,185.00
Moving Party: Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Plaintiff may file a request for entry of default.
Plaintiff’s request for further monetary sanctions is DENIED.
The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default/Default Judgment for May 16, 2024 at 9:30AM in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.
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 01, 2024 … [ ] Late … [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of March 07, 2024 … [ ] Late … [X] None
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Asif Iqbal (“Defendant”) alleging breach of contract and common counts.
Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint on June 27, 2023.
On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed its motions to compel responses to requests for documents and an order deeming truth of matters specified in requests for admissions admitted. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motions, ordering Defendant to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production without objection, and deeming Plaintiff’s request for admissions as admitted against the Defendant. The Court additionally granted in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and awarded Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,310.00.
On January 08, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enter Default and for Monetary Sanctions against Asif Iqbal in the total amount of $2,185.00.
No opposition has been filed.
MOVING PARTY POSITION
Plaintiff prays for the Court to issue an order striking Defendant’s Answer and for entry of default against Defendant for failure to obey the Court’s prior discovery orders under CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.310, 2033.280 and 2023.030. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s actions constitute a misuse of the discovery process because Defendant has not provided any verified, objection free responses to Plaintiff’s discovery request or paid sanctions as required by the Court’s November 13, 2023, order. Plaintiff additionally requests that sanctions be entered against the Defendant in the amount of $2,185.00.
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
Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions, striking Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint, for default to be entered against Defendant, and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,185.00 for expenses incurred in bringing the instant Motion. (Mot. p. 7.) Plaintiff argues that sanctions are appropriate because Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, even after the Court order Defendant to provide verified responses on November 13, 2023. (Id. p.2)
Plaintiff provides the Court with the declaration of its Counsel who states that Plaintiff served its first set of discovery requests on July 10, 2023. (Joshua P. Friedman Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant did not respond to the discovery request, nor counsel’s attempt to meet and confer, so Plaintiff filed its motion to compel responses. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s motions and on November 13, 2023, the Court granted the motion, ordering the Defendant to provide verified responses, without objections, and to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,310.00, within 20 days of notice of the order. (Id. ¶ 4; 11-13-23 Minute Order.) Counsel avers that to date Defendant has refused to provide verified responses despite the Court’s order and Plaintiff’s request. (Id. ¶ 5.) Moreover, the parties have been unable to informally resolve the issues outside of court. (Id.) Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has not complied with the Court’s order. Plaintiff argues that because of Defendant’s obstinance in responding to Plaintiff’s discovery request or Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts, Defendant has abused the discovery process. (Mot. p. 6.)
Plaintiff seeks $2,185.00 in monetary sanctions for more than two (2) hours drafting the motion at a rate of $425.00 per hour. Plaintiff anticipates spending an additional one hour preparing a reply to any opposition, and two (2) hours attending the hearing on the motion. (Friedman Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff also seeks $60.00 in costs, for a total of $2,185.00 in sanctions. (Mot. p.6)
The Court notes that since filing his Answer on June 27, 2023, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, motions to compel discovery, or the instant motion for terminating sanctions. It appears that Defendant has willfully abandoned this litigation. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the history in the instant case demonstrates that Defendant is unwilling to comply with Plaintiff’s requests or the Court’s orders and thus, lesser sanctions have not been effective in producing compliance. Here, Defendant has not filed any opposition to this Motion to argue why his failure to engage in discovery was due to an inability to comply or otherwise as opposed to bad faith.
Thus, for these reasons, the Court finds an order striking Defendants’ Answer to be appropriate. Defendant Asif Iqbal’s Answer is HEREBY STRICKEN. Plaintiff may separately move for default to be entered against Defendant.
However, the Court declines to award further monetary sanctions as doing so would be futile in producing compliance.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff Westlake Services’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions by Striking Defendant’s Answer is GRANTED IN PART.
Defendant Asif Iqbal’s Answer, filed on June 27, 2023, is HEREBY STRICKEN.
Plaintiff may file a request for entry of default.
Plaintiff’s request for further monetary sanctions is DENIED.
The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default/Default Judgment for May 16, 2024 at 9:30AM in in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse
Moving party is ordered to give notice.