Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV18607, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV18607, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18607 Hearing Date: December 10, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27¿

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 12/10/24

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV18607 ROBERTO FRAUSTO ACEVEDO, AN... vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Responding Party: None

Notice: Sufficient¿¿

Ruling: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS GRANTED

This case involves an auto negligence accident. Plaintiff Roberto Frausto Acevedo (“Plaintiff”) alleges negligent operation of a Metro bus which Plaintiff asserts hit him while he was riding his bicycle, causing him to sustain bodily injuries and property damage. The complaint was filed on August 4, 2023, and Defendant filed its answer on September 11, 2023.

On September 11, 2023, Defendant Metro propounded upon Plaintiff Acevedo a set of Form Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Pluma Decl., ¶ 3.) The responses were due on or before October 16, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension to December 11, 2023, which Defendant granted. (Id.) However, on December 11, 2023, Plaintiff failed to provide responses. (Id.) Thus, on May 14, 2024, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Form Interrogatories, as well as a Motion to have Requests for Admission Deemed Admitted. The foregoing motions were all unopposed and then heard and granted on August 1, 2024. (Min. Order, 8/1/24.) Given that Defendant did not request monetary sanctions, the Court declined to impose sanctions for the motions to compel. (Id.) However, because sanctions are mandatory for motions to establish admissions, the Court awarded $60 in sanctions against Plaintiff to represent the filing cost for the motion. (Id.) Plaintiff was further ordered to provide verified responses within ten (10) days and pay the $60 in monetary sanctions to Defense counsel within thirty (30) days of said order`. Defendant Metro then filed and served the Notice of ruling on Plaintiff on August 1, 2024. (Id.)

On March 27, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s (Albert Abkarian) motion to be relieved effective upon filing proof of service of the final order. (Min. Order, 3/27/24.) The order was signed on April 3, 2024. On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed the proof of service of the Order, which was mailed to Plaintiff on April 5, 2024. Plaintiff is currently self-represented.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the discovery order and has not contacted Defendant’s counsel.

The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to and commensurate with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “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, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390 [citation omitted].)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate here given the complete lack of engagement demonstrated by Plaintiff, and the failure to abide by the Court’s August 1, 2024 order. The Court previously denied Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions based on Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff may be in a correctional facility. Therefore, it was unclear if Plaintiff had actual notice of this motion. (See Min. Order, 10/4/24.) However, the declaration in support of this motion states that Defendant hired an investigator who concluded that Plaintiff was not in federal or state prison, or in the County jail. (Pluma Decl. ¶ 8.) The investigation revealed a possible alternative address for Plaintiff. Notice of this motion has been mailed to that address, and the address on the Order Relieving Counsel. Therefore, the Court concludes that notice is proper.

Accordingly, seeing no opposition, and finding that Plaintiff’s conduct severely limits Defendant’s ability to defend this case, and that less severe sanctions have not induced compliance, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.