Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV04917, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV04917 Hearing Date: August 21, 2023 Dept: 28
|
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc. (“Rodriguez”), J Cordero Trucking, Inc., Jonathan Alexander Moran (“Moran”), and Does 1-50 for negligence and negligence per se. On May 2, 2022, Rodriguez and Moran filed an answer. On July 10, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Intervenor State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Intervenor") to intervene on behalf of Rodriguez and Moran. On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions to be heard on August 21, 2023. On August 8, 2023, Intervenor, Rodriguez and Moran (“Opposing Parties”) filed an opposition. On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply. The trial is currently set for September 29, 2023. PARTES’ REQUESTS Plaintiff requests that the Court issue terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidentiary, issue, or monetary sanctions, against Rodriguez and Moran and impose monetary sanctions of $4,500.00. Opposing Parties request that the Court deny the motion. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or by entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (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.) While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions "should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Ibid.) DISCUSSION |
On March 3, 2023, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Moran and ordered Moran to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Request Nos. 30, 32, and 34 within 30 days. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Moran’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production and ordered Moran to provide verified, code- compliant responses within 30 days. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and ordered Moran to pay Plaintiff $684.94 in sanctions within 30 days.
Rodriguez and Moran have not complied with the Court’s February 16, 2023 and March 3, 2023 orders. Plaintiff argues the Court therefore should grant terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidentiary, issue, or monetary sanctions against Rodriguez and Moran.
Opposing Parties argue that sanctions should not be imposed on Rodriguez and Moran because counsel lost contact with them over a year ago. Rodriguez and Moran have not acted willfully, Opposing Parties argue, because Rodriguez and Moran do not know about Plaintiff’s previous discovery motions or the present motion.
Rodriguez and Moran were aware of this case and previously had contact with their counsel. (See Motion for Leave to Intervene, filed 4/3/2023, p. 3 [“Although Defense counsel was able to contact [Rodriguez and Moran] shortly after receiving the file in April 2022, numerous attempts to contact them by mail, phone, and personal contact since May 2022 have been unsuccessful”].) Rodriguez and Moran have not contacted their counsel for over a year to check on the status of the case or explain their absence. The Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate because Rodriguez and Moran have engaged in willful conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process and a less severe sanction would not produce compliance with the discovery rules.
Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the answer of Rodriguez and Moran and enter default against them. The Court may impose a terminating sanction by issuing “[a]n order striking out the pleadings” or “[a]n order rendering a judgment by default . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (d)(1), (d)(4).)
“A separate statement of damages claimed by plaintiff in personal injury . . . actions must be served on defendant before entry of default, including where defendant’s answer is stricken as a discovery sanction.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Proceedings Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:2186, p. 8M-21.) Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service showing he served a statement of damages on Rodriguez and Moran or their counsel. Therefore, the Court will strike the answer but will not enter default.
Plaintiff requests $4,500 in monetary sanctions based on 18 hours of attorney time, including 10 hours to prepare the motion, 6 hours to prepare the reply, and 2 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing, at an hourly rate of $250 per hour. The Court grants sanctions of $1000 based on 4 hours of attorney time because the failure of Rodriguez and Moran to comply with their discovery obligations caused Plaintiff to file this motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s motion for terminating sanctions. The Court strikes the answer of Defendants Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc. and Jonathan Alexander Moran under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(1).
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s request for monetary sanctions. Defendants Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc. and Jonathan Alexander Moran are ordered to pay $1000.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.