Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV32169, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32169    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: 30

JOSE QUINTANILLA, AN INDIVIDUAL vs FRANCISCO JAVIER MARTINEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (terminating sanction) is DENIED without prejudice for improper 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 a terminating sanction dismissing Plaintiff’s action against Defendants based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s January 24, 2024 order to respond to discovery.

The Court, “after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose” a terminating sanction dismissing the action against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (C.C.P. §2023.030(d)(3).) Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (C.C.P. §2023.010(d) and (g).)

However, Defendants did not give proper notice to Plaintiff. The notice of motion states that the hearing is set for March 29, 2020. And the notice of errata is unrelated to the incorrect hearing date. Therefore, the motion is denied so that Defendants could give Plaintiff proper notice.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (terminating sanction) is DENIED without prejudice for improper notice.