Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00221, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00221, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00221 Hearing Date: October 24, 2023 Dept: C

VANG, ET AL. v. LEE, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00221

HEARING: 10/24/23 @ 9:30 a.m.

TENTATIVE RULING

I. Plaintiff BURLEE VANG, ABEL VANG, and UNCANNY PRODUCTIONS, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED as to Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS LLC and DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant CARR LEE.

II. Plaintiff BURLEE VANG, ABEL VANG, and UNCANNY PRODUCTIONS, LLC’s motion in the alternative for evidentiary or issue sanctions is DENIED as MOOT as to Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS LLC and DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant CARR LEE.

The Court strikes Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS, LLC’s Answer and Cross-Complaint.

The Court enters default judgment against Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS, LLC in favor of Plaintiff BURLEE VANG, ABEL VANG, and UNCANNY PRODUCTIONS, LLC.

Moving party to give notice.

This misappropriation action was filed by Plaintiff BURLEE VANG, ABEL VANG, and UNCANNY PRODUCTIONS, LLC (Plaintiffs) on March 28, 2022. Plaintiffs’ operative first amended complaint (FAC) was filed on June 27, 2022 and asserts the following causes of action: (1) intentional breach of fiduciary duty; (2) negligent breach of fiduciary duty; (3) conversion; (4) accounting; (5) breach of written contract; (6) intentional interference with contractual relations; (7) breach of oral contract; (8) defamation per se; and (9) declaratory relief.

Plaintiffs move for terminating sanctions and alternatively, evidentiary or issue sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ motion for terminating sanctions and alternatively, evidentiary or issue sanctions:

Legal Standard

If anyone engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary sanction, issue sanction, evidence sanction, terminating sanction, and contempt sanction. (CCP §§ 2023.030, 2030.290, 2031.320.) The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487.) A prerequisite to the imposition of the dismissal sanction is that the party has willfully failed to comply with a court order. (Ibid.) Terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective. (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.) A terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary sanction is never justified. (Newland v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

“The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(CCP § 2030.030(d).)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs move for terminating sanctions against Defendants CARR LEE and FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS, LLC (Defendants) for failing to obey this Court’s June 22, 2023 orders. Plaintiffs specifically request the Court (1) strike Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ FAC, (2) strike Defendants’ cross-complaint, and (3) issue default judgment against Defendants in favor of Plaintiffs. Alternatively, Plaintiffs move for evidentiary or issue sanctions prohibiting Defendants from introducing any evidence, oral or written, at trial regarding alleged injuries and damages associated with the cross-complaint.

On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs served Requests for Production of Documents (RPDs) (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (SROGS) (Set One) on Defendants via electronic service. (Rosen Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exhs. 1-2.) A month later, former defense counsel Navid Soleymani filed a Substitution of Attorney and negotiated a continuance of the discovery deadlines almost six weeks out. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Defendants’ new counsel still failed to respond to the discovery requests. (Id.) As such, on March 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed motions to compel responses to RPDs (Set One) and SROGS (Set One). (Id. at ¶ 8.)

On June 22, 2023, this Court ordered Defendants to provide verified responses and documents, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ RPDs (Set One) and SROGS (Set One), no later than 10 days from the issuance of the order. (Min. Order 6/22/23.) This Court also ordered Defendants to pay Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the amount of $990.00, no later than 30 days from the issuance of the order. (Id.) Plaintiffs state that as of the time of this instant motion, they have not received any responses, documents, or payment of sanctions. (Rosen Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs also state that former defense counsel offered to supplement discovery responses, but Defendants would not cooperate. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

The Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant CARR LEE. On September 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Bankruptcy re: Debtor Carr Lee. To date, no Notice of Bankruptcy Stay has been filed in this case. Regardless, the automatic stay is triggered by the filing of a Bankruptcy Petition and becomes effective with or without a court order. There is a Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy of Defendant(s) set for Hearing on March 25, 2024.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted as to Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS, LLC because Defendant has not provided responses and documents to Plaintiffs’ RPDs (Set One) and SROGS (Set One). This Court already imposed monetary sanctions in this case in the amount of $990.00 and Defendant has failed to comply with such order. Moreover, Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motions to compel, which resulted in the present motion at issue. Additionally, Defendant was served with notice of this instant motion and again did not file an opposition. Therefore, it is clear that Defendant is disinterested in litigating this case. Accordingly, the Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED as to Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS, LLC.

The Court strikes Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS, LLC’s Answer and Cross-Complaint.

The Court enters default judgment against Defendant FILM 102 PRODUCTIONS, LLC in favor of Plaintiff BURLEE VANG, ABEL VANG, and UNCANNY PRODUCTIONS, LLC.