Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV17114, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV17114, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17114 Hearing Date: January 17, 2024 Dept: 30

GEORGE MAHR vs GOLDEN EDA INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Golden Eda (International) Properties, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is GRANTED.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Golden Eda (International) Properties, LLC with prejudice.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Background

On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff George Mahr filed a Complaint against Defendants Golden Eda International Properties, LLC, and Golden Globe Investments LLC, and Lyfestyle Properties, LLC, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence, due to a trip and fall that occurred on June 7, 2019.

On July 10, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the discovery within 20 days.

On December 7, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for terminating and monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

CCP section 2023.030 provides that, "[t]o 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, evidence, and terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...." CCP section 2023.010 provides that "[m]issues 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...."

"The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse 'after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.'" (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) "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, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

"Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders." (Id. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244- 1246); see, e.g., Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal App 3d 481, 491 (disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCucchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for terminating and monetary sanctions on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's July 10, 2023 order compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery.

On July 10, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents within 20 days. (7/10/2023 Minute Order.) Notice of the Court order was given to Plaintiff on July 11, 2023. (7/11/2023 Notice of Ruling.) Despite the Court’s Order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court-ordered discovery. (Cristal Decl., ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery, failed to comply with the Court's order to respond to discovery, and failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions, despite proper service of this motion. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to explain why he has been unable to comply with the outstanding court order, and as a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

willfully misused the discovery process by this lack of diligence. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787 [“Lack of diligence may be deemed willful in the sense that the party understood his obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.”]) It appears imposing less severe sanctions against Plaintiff would not produce compliance, and that Plaintiff is disinterested in prosecuting this case. This has prejudiced Defendant’s ability to prepare for trial, which is set for January 31, 2024. As such, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s written discovery requests, terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Jerry's Shell v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1069.)

As the motion for terminating sanctions is granted, the request for monetary sanctions is denied, as granting that request in addition to terminating sanctions would provide duplicative relief to Defendant.