Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV27462, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27462    Hearing Date: April 7, 2025    Dept: 61

VALENTINA GONZALEZ, et al. vs SILVIA ROMO

Tentative

Defendant Silvia Romo’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff Ricardo Ruiz Gonzalez is GRANTED. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

Moving party to give notice.

Analysis

I. MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

The court may impose terminating sanctions, including an order striking pleadings, an order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This conduct includes “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) Dismissal is a drastic measure, and 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] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)

Defendant Silvia Romo (Defendant) seeks terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Ricardo Ruiz Gonzalez based on Gonzalez’s failure to serve responses to interrogatories despite this court’s order of December 5, 2023, granting Defendant’s motion to compel such responses. (Heim Decl. ¶¶ 4–6.)

Defendant has shown that Plaintiff Ricardo Ruiz Gonzalez has violated a court order in failing to provide responses as ordered by this court on December 5, 2023. Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to the present motion. It appears they are no longer interested in prosecuting this case. 

The motion is therefore GRANTED.