Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV13404, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13404    Hearing Date: December 18, 2024    Dept: 61

CHANTAL G. ESTIVE vs AGUSTIN QUIROZ

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Chantal Estive’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Agustin Quiroz is DENED, and the sanctions award in the March 27, 2024 order is vacated.

Defendant to give notice.

DISCUSSION

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.)

Plaintiff Chantal Estive (Plaintiff) seeks additional monetary sanctions against Defendant Agustin Quiroz (Defendant) based on Defendant’s failure to pay the $2,100.00 in sanctions awarded in this court’s order of March 27, 2024, denying in part Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff. (Murphy Decl. ¶¶ 2–6.)

No sanctions-on-sanctions order is appropriate here, because the failure to pay sanctions is not a basis for further penalties. Awards of monetary sanctions are immediately enforceable as though enforcing a monetary judgment.

Nor is a terminating sanction necessary in order to enforce a monetary order. Weil and Brown observe that many attorneys seem to be unaware that monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws. These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial court may order a stay of the sanction. Unawareness of this remedy may explain why terminating sanctions are often sought when monetary sanctions are unpaid. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615, internal citations omitted.)

Even if further sanctions were available, justice would not entitle Plaintiff to them. The monetary sanctions were but one part of the March 27, 2024 order, which, while overwhelmingly denying Defendant’s motions to compel further, also required Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses to certain interrogatories. While Plaintiff complains that the sanctions were not paid, Plaintiff did not provide the supplemental responses ordered until the date the present motion was filed. (Carlsen Decl. ¶ 11.) In addition, Plaintiff’s only attempts to meet and confer on this motion took place in April 2024. (Murphy Decl. ¶ 5.) Meet and confer efforts were placed on hold for a September 2024 mediation, after which Plaintiff filed the present motion without warning. (Murphy Decl. ¶¶ 4–6.)

Defendant seeks sanctions incurred in opposing this motion in the amount of $2,178.00, representing 4.4 hours of attorney work at $495 per hour. (Carlsen Decl. ¶ 14.) Defendant also seeks an offset based on Plaintiff’s failure to attend her deposition in July 2023. (Carlsen Decl. ¶ 3.)

No additional sanctions are proper, but a modification of the prior sanctions award is appropriate to take into account the work expended by Defendant in opposing this needless motion.

Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is DENIED, and the sanctions award in the March 27, 2024 order is vacated.