Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC02295 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Defendant Jose Diaz’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES JOSE VALENTIN CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Grant terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court’s discovery orders.

Plaintiff Jose Valentin Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Jose Diaz on March 18, 2021. Defendant answered the Complaint on May 10, 2021. On April 5, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 04/05/22.) On May 23, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (Minute Order, 05/23/22.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on May 10, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) 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.) “[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.) “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint under the above provisions,. The Court granted Defendant’s discovery motions on April 5 2022, pursuant to which Plaintiff was to serve responses and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the ruling. (Minute Order, 04/05/22.) Notice of the ruling was served on Plaintiff on April 8, 2022. (Notice of Ruling, filed 04/08/22.) To date, however, Plaintiff has not served responses nor paid sanctions as ordered. (Motion, DeSalernos Decl., ¶3 and Exh. B.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the discovery orders. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff failed to serve responses or pay sanctions as ordered. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Nor has any opposition to the Motion been filed despite notice of the request to terminate this action. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrates that compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.)

Defendant Jose Diaz’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES JOSE VALENTIN CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.