Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00227, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21NWCV00227 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: C
ortegon v. cortazar, et al.
CASE NO.: 21NWCV00227
HEARING: 3/6/24 @ 9:30 AM
#1
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Issue Sanctions is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Plaintiff Javier Ortegon (Plaintiff) moves for an order of terminating, issue, and monetary sanctions against Defendant Carolina Cortazar (Defendant Cortazar).
This is a landlord-tenant dispute between Plaintiff, the tenant, and defendants Carolina Cortazar, Steven Mitchell, and Carlos Sandoval. Plaintiff alleges that defendants unlawfully entered the leased property on several occasions, threatened Plaintiff, removed Plaintiff’s personal property, and wrongfully evicted Plaintiff.
Legal Standard
If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (h); § 2030.290, subd. (c); § 2031.300, subd. (c).) “To 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, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030.) “Misuses 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 ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions, issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions after Defendant violated this Court’s March 24, 2022, order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection of Premises, Set One; February 21, 2023 order compelling Defendant to respond without objections to Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection of Tangible Things, Set One. Plaintiff also moves for sanctions on the grounds that Defendant did not pay monetary sanctions; respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One; and respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two.
1) Terminating Sanctions
Terminating sanctions are not warranted. “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 v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390.)
Here, it appears that Defendant served responses to Demand for Inspection of Tangible Things, Set One on October 25, 2022. (Opp. Mot., Ex. B.) However, those responses are not supported by competent evidence because they lack foundation; further, they contain objections. This contravenes the Court’s February 21, 2023, order stating that responses cannot be served with objections. Defendants’ attorney also states that he communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel that he believed the premises could not be inspected because a new tenant was leasing it. However, this communication is unresponsive to Plaintiff’s discovery. Nonetheless, Defendant Cortazar has participated in other discovery proceedings recently brought before this Court. Thus, the Court believes that less severe sanctions can address Plaintiff’s inability to obtain responsive discovery responses.
2) Issue Sanctions
Issue sanctions are appropriate because Defendant Cortazar has misused the discovery process. The court may impose issue sanctions against a party that misuses the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (b).) Misuses of the discovery process include failing to submit to a deposition, disobeying a court order, and failing to meet and confer to informally resolve disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) Defendant Cortazar has failed to respond or allow inspection of the premises and items as ordered by this Court on March 24, 2022, and February 21, 2023, respectively. Further, Defendant Cortazar has failed to provide any justification for her refusal to do so. Thus, issue sanctions are appropriate for Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process.
An issue sanction can prohibit a party from opposing a claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (b).) However, Plaintiff does not state which issues it wants the Court to strike. Thus, the Court does not grant issue sanctions.
3) Monetary Sanctions
Monetary sanctions are appropriate because Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process necessitated this motion and Defendant failed to obey a court order compelling Garcia’s deposition.
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $3,574.77 which consists of 7 hours for drafting the motion and 3 hours reviewing the opposition, drafting a reply, and attending the hearing at a rate of $350.00 and the $74.77 filing fee. This motion is not complicated; therefore, the Court reduces the amount of sanctions to $1,124.77.
Because the Court will adjudicate the issue of outstanding discovery to Requests for Admissions, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set Two, at other hearings, it will not adjudicate them here.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant Cortazar and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,124.77. This sanction is to be paid within 20 days of this Order.
et al.
CASE NO.: 21NWCV00227
HEARING: 3/6/24 @ 9:30 AM
#1
I.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming that the Truth of All Matters
Specified in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions is MOOT.
II.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Plaintiff Javier Ortegon (Plaintiff) moves for
an order that the truth of all matters specified in Plaintiff’s first set of
requests for admission be deemed admitted against Defendant Carolina Cortazar
(Defendant Cortazar). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.
This
is a landlord-tenant dispute between Plaintiff, the tenant, and defendants
Carolina Cortazar, Steven Mitchell, and Carlos Sandoval. Plaintiff alleges that
defendants unlawfully entered the leased property on several occasions,
threatened Plaintiff, removed Plaintiff’s personal property, and wrongfully
evicted Plaintiff.
Legal
Standard
“If
a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely
response, the following rules apply … (b) The requesting party may move for an
order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters
specified in the requests be deemed admitted … (c) The court shall make this
order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have
been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response
to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section
2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
Discussion
Plaintiff Ortegon served his Requests for
Admission, Set One on Defendant Cortazar on July 25, 2023. Untimely responses
were served by Defendant Cortazar on December 10, 2023. Because the responses
were filed before the hearing, the instant motion is MOOT.
Monetary Sanctions
Sanctions are mandatory against any party,
person, or attorney who fails to timely serve responses to requests for
admission or who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response
to interrogatories unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial
justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.320, subd. (b), 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff Ortegon seeks $1,824.77 in sanctions
consisting of 3 hours preparing the motion and 2 hours reviewing the
opposition, drafting a reply, and attending the hearing at $350.00 per hour and
$74.77 in filing fees.
In the opposition, counsel for Defendant
Cortazar asserts that the failure was due to his mistake, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect and that he should be relieved from the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§2033.280, subd. (a)(2).) Counsel further asserts that the delay was not a
result of any bad faith or willful neglect. Counsel also argues that imposing
sanctions would not serve the interests of justice but would instead impose an
undue financial burden on the Defendants.
The Court is unpersuaded. However, the Court
notes the similarity between these motions and the fact that no reply has been
filed. Accordingly, sanctions will be awarded in the reasonable sum of $599.77
(1.5 hours preparing the motion, reviewing the opposition, and attending the
hearing at $350.00 per hour, and $74.77 in filing fees) against Defendant Cortazar
and counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.
Defendant Cortazar also requests a stay on
further discovery proceedings pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s criminal
trial. The Court will not adjudicate this matter because it is not the subject
of the instant motion.