Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV38115, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV38115 Hearing Date: September 11, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs John Ellis, Judith Guerreo, Kyara Ellis, and Jezaoi Ellis filed this action against Defendants Santos Caballero and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On October 12, 2022, Defendant Santos Carranzacabbalero, erroneously sued and served as Santos Caballero (“Defendant”), filed an answer.
On May 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs John Ellis and Judith Guerrero.
On June 28, 2023, the Court granted the following motions filed by Defendant:
1. Motion to compel Plaintiff Jezaoi Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one
2. Motion to compel Plaintiff Jezaoi Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s inspection demands
3. Motion to compel Plaintiff Jezaoi Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s special interrogatories, set one
4. Motion to compel Plaintiff Kyara Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one
5. Motion to compel Plaintiff Kyara Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s inspection demands
6. Motion to compel Plaintiff Kyara Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s special interrogatories, set one
7. Motion to compel Plaintiff Judith Guerreo’s responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one
The Court ordered Plaintiffs to serve responses, without objections, within 30 days. The Court also granted Defendant’s request for sanctions.
On June 29, 2023, the Court granted the following motions filed by Defendant:
1. Motion to compel Plaintiff John Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one
2. Motion to compel Plaintiff John Ellis’s responses to
Defendant’s inspection demands
3. Motion to compel Plaintiff Judith Guerreo’s responses
to Defendant’s special interrogatories, set one
4. Motion to compel Plaintiff Judith Guerreo’s responses to Defendant’s inspection demands
The Court ordered Plaintiffs to serve responses, without objections, within 30 days. The Court also granted Defendant’s request for sanctions.
On June 30, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff John Ellis to respond to Defendant’s special interrogatories, set one, and ordered Plaintiff John Ellis to serve responses, without objections, within 30 days. The Court also granted Defendant’s request for sanctions.
On August 9, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions to be heard on September 11, 2023. No opposition has been filed.
The case is set for trial on September 13, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Defendant
requests that the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs and
impose $61.65 in monetary sanctions.
|
LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides in part: “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: “(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction 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. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. * * * “(d) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a), (d).) A violation of a discovery order supports 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 (Deyo).) A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, supra, 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.) DISCUSSION |
|
Defendant requests monetary
sanctions of $61.65 to compensate Defendant for the motion’s filing fee. The request is reasonable and the Court
grants it. |
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Santos Carranzacabbalero, erroneously sued and served as Santos Caballero, for terminating sanctions.
The Court dismisses the complaint filed by Plaintiffs John Ellis, Judith Guerreo, Kyara Ellis, and Jezaoi Ellis with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3).
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiffs John Ellis, Judith Guerreo, Kyara Ellis, and Jezaoi Ellis to pay Defendant $61.65 within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.