Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV10408, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10408    Hearing Date: December 22, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff Poppiilasha Adams (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Maricela Velez and Does 1-50 for negligence. 

On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Oscar Antonio Ponce as Doe 1. 

On January 31, 2023, Defendants Marisela Velez (erroneously sued and served as Maricela Velez) and Oscar Antonio Ponce (“Defendants”) filed an answer. 

On July 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel responses to Defendants’ request for production of documents and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 13, 2023.  The Court also granted Defendants’ motion to compel responses to Defendants’ form interrogatories and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories without objections by August 13, 2023.  The Court granted Defendants’ request for sanctions and ordered Plaintiff and her counsel to pay Defendants $420 by August 13, 2023. 

On August 18, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions to be heard on September 15, 2023.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

On September 1, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. 

On September 15, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants' motion for terminating sanctions to December 1, 2023 and ordered Defendants to serve the motion and notice of continuance on Plaintiff. 

The trial is currently set for March 4, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUEST 

Defendants request that the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. 

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 

          On September 15, 2023, the Court ordered Defendants to serve the motion for terminating sanctions and notice of continuance on Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel.  On September 20, 2023, Defendants filed a “Notice of Continuance” with an attached proof of service showing service of the notice on Plaintiff.  However, Defendants did not file a proof of service showing service of the motion for terminating sanctions on Plaintiff. 

On December 1, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions and ordered Defendants to file proof of service showing service of the motion and supporting papers on Plaintiff. 

Defendants have now complied with the Court’s request. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

On July 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ discovery motions and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. Plaintiff has not served responses or contacted Defendants to request an extension.

The Court finds that no lesser sanction than dismissal would result in Plaintiff complying with her discovery obligations. The Court grants the motion and dismisses the case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion for terminating sanctions of Defendants Oscar Antonio Ponce and Maricela Velez.  The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3). 

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.