Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC06219 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC06219, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC06219 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: 26

Westlake Services, LLC v. Momentum Motor Group, LLC, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Service’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions is ruled on as follows. THE COURT HEREBY STRIKES DEFENDANTS MOMENTUM AUTO GROUP, LLC DBA MOMENTUM AUTO GROUP AND DAMON YOUNG AKA DAMON RONALD YOUNG’S ANSWER FILED ON OCTOBER 20, 2021 AND ENTERS DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Westlake Service, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Momentum Auto Group, LLC dba Momentum Auto Group and Damon Young aka Damon Ronald Young (“Defendants”) on August 25, 2021. Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on October 20, 2021.

On June 15, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants’ responses to special interrogatories and motion to deem requests for admission admitted, and requests for monetary sanctions. (Minute Order, 06/15/22.) The Court ordered Defendants to serve responses to the discovery and pay monetary sanctions within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Defendants on the June 22, 2022. (Notice of Ruling, filed 06/22/22.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on August 5, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date. On October 17, 2022, the Court granted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. (Minute Order, 10/17/22.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order striking Defendants’ Answer and entering their default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), 2031.320, subdivision (c) and 2023.030, subdivision (d).

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.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

The Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery motions on June 15, 2022 and notice of the orders was served on Defendants on June 22, 2022. At the time of the filing of this motion, Defendants had not served responses in compliance with the Court’s orders, nor paid the monetary sanctions as ordered. (Motion, Freed Decl., ¶4.) In fact, Defendants did not file an opposition to, nor appear at the hearing on, the discovery motions. (Minute Order, 06/15/22.) Nor have Defendants opposed the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions.

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Defendants’ failure to comply with the orders compelling service of responses. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that Defendants have no intention of participating in this action or defending the claims brought by Plaintiff. “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.)

In light of the award of terminating sanctions and Defendants’ prior failure to pay monetary sanctions, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied as futile and punitive.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.