Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV27494, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27494    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     February 16, 2024                 TRIAL DATE:  February 21, 2024

CASE:                                Reuben Creech, et al. v. Claribel Reyes

CASE NO.:                 22STCV27494

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FRANKESKA WILSON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PRIOR ORDER OF THE COURT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Juan Guerrero, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

            On August 24, 2022, plaintiffs Frankeska Wilson (“Plaintiff”) and Reuben Creech (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against defendant Claribel Reyes and Does 1 to 10 alleging cause of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence. Plaintiff was a passenger in a motor vehicle when the vehicle was rear-ended. On January 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint adding defendant Juan Guerrero Jr. as Doe 6 (“Defendant”).

            On November 9, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel motion for leave to withdraw as counsel due to a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.

            On December 7, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

            On January 24, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. The motion is unopposed and scheduled for hearing on February 16, 2024. On calendar for the same date is a Defendant’s motion to compel discovery.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process.  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 court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery, by staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed, by dismissing the action of that party, or by entering a default judgment against that party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) 

A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions.  Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.  Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders.  Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796. 

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290 specifically authorizes the court to impose monetary and terminating sanctions against a party that fails to obey an order compelling response to interrogatories.

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including 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 discovery.  Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.  If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted.  Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.  However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.”  Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787.  Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers.  Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.  Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.  Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.  The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful.  Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.

A terminating sanction is a “drastic measure which should be employed with caution.”  Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.  “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.”  Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.  While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”  Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.  “[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations.”  (Ibid.)  

III.      DISCUSSION

Plaintiff did not obey the Court’s December 7, 2023 order to provide further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Marque Decl., ¶10.)

On December 18, 2023, Defendant served Supplemental Form Interrogatories and Request for Production on Plaintiff. (Id., ¶11, Exh. F.) Responses were due on January 22, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff did not provide responses. (Mtn., 6:11-12.)

Plaintiff failed to appear for her properly noticed deposition on December 4, 2023. (Id., ¶12, Exhs. G and H.)

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            Defendant Juan Guerrero, Jr.’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Frankeska Wilson is GRANTED. Plaintiff Frankeska Wilson’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   February 16, 2024

                                                                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.