Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV39275, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39275    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 55

LIRA v. COSIO                                                                    20STCV39275 

Hearing Date:  3/1/23,  Dept. 55

#7:   MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,661.65.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  

Summary

On 10/13/20, Plaintiff JOSE ANTONIO OLIVARES LIRA filed a Complaint, alleging a breach of contract and fraud, committed by Defendant, after Defendant agreed to produce textile materials in exchange for money tendered by Plaintiff, but Defendant never delivered.

MP Positions

Moving party moves for terminating and monetary sanctions against Defendant SILVESTRE COSIO, on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiff seeks an order striking the Answer of Defendant SILVESTRE COSIO, entering default and imposing terminating sanctions.

·         The sanctions would be because of Defendant’s persistent refusal to comply with the orders of this Court, to participate in discovery, and to comply with the California Rules of Court.

·         Terminating sanctions would be pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d).

·         Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions on Defendant, in the amount of $5,661.65, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300, et seq.

·         On March 22, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions.

·         On August 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses, ordered responses to be served by September 2, 2022, and imposed monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $3,261.50. Plaintiff has neither received those responses nor the monetary sanctions.

·         On November 18, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition as prayed. Defendant continues to refuse to sit for his deposition.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

The Court will sign and file a proposed order from the moving party.

“If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’ ”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434. 

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions.  E.g., CCP §§2023.010(g), 2030.290(c);  R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.