Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV03993, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV03993, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03993 Hearing Date: December 9, 2024 Dept: 61

JOSHAWA NICHOLS, et al. vs GOMEZ ENTERPRISES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Joshawa Nichols, Robert Armstrong, and Jazmine Mixon’s Motion to Strike Defendant Gomez Enterprises, LLC’s Answer or Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED, in part. The answer is not stricken. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, One, are deemed admitted against Defendant.

Plaintiffs to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and 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.)

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (b).)

Plaintiffs Joshawa Nichols, Robert Armstrong, and Jazmine Mixon (Plaintiffs) move to strike Defendant Gomez Enterprises, LLC’s (Defendant) answer on the grounds that since Defendant filed its answer on December 15, 2022, after this court granted their motion for relief from default, they and their counsel have failed to respond to correspondence and discovery, indicating that they merely sought by the filing of the answer to delay prosecution of the action. (Motion at pp. 2–5.) Specifically, although Defendant followed its answer with settlement correspondence, Defendant abandoned that correspondence in July 2023. (Rodby Decl. ¶¶ 2–4.) Although Defendant substituted counsel in November 2023, their new counsel has not responded to Plaintiffs’ inquiries. (Rodby Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiffs also note that requests for admission were served upon Defendant on September 23, 2023, with responses due on October 31, 2023. (Rodby Decl. ¶¶ 9–11.) No responses have been served, despite an attempt to meet and confer. (Rodby Decl. ¶¶ 11–13.)

No striking of the answer is appropriate. Ultimate discovery sanctions, such as the striking of an answer, 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. Here, the only evidence of misconduct is Defendant’s failure to correspond after the termination of settlement discussions in July 2023. That evidence does not suffice for such severe sanctions.

However, Plaintiffs have shown entitlement to an order deeming requests for admissions admitted against Defendant, as such requests were served, and no responses were timely provided, or have been provided to date. Defendant has filed no opposition to this motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED, in part. The answer is not stricken, and the requests for admission are deemed admitted against Defendant.