Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV02193, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02193    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 30

WILSON BANEGAS vs NVARD YERVAND, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendants Yervand Luledzhyan and Nvard Luledzhyan’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants is dismissed with prejudice. Moving party to give notice.

Legal Standard

"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

Defendants move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s October 27, 2023 order to respond to discovery.

On October 27, 2023, this Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), and Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses within 30 days. (10/27/2023 Minute Order.) Plaintiff’s counsel was present at the hearing. (Id.) Further, notice of the ruling was sent to Plaintiff on October 30, 2023. (10/30/2023 Notice of Ruling.)

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to any outstanding discovery nor paid the court ordered sanctions to defense counsel. (Victor Decl., ¶ 5.)

First, Court notes that whether Plaintiff complied with the Court’s order to pay monetary sanctions is not relevant to the determination of whether terminating sanctions¿should be imposed. A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction. ¿(Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.)¿ A monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, CCP §§680.010, et seq. (Id. at 615.)

Even so, Plaintiff has been engaging in discovery abuse. Defendants propounded on Plaintiff discovery requests, yet Plaintiff failed to comply with his discovery obligations. Further, Plaintiff has also failed to provide responses to the discovery, even after this Court ordered him to do so. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted in this instance. 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.”]) Also, Plaintiff’s failure to comply is detrimental to Defendant’s ability to prepare for trial. As such, because there is a willful history of discovery abuse after numerous attempts to obtain such discovery, to the detriment of Defendant, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted.