Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STCP01625 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP01625, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01625 Hearing Date: February 22, 2023 Dept: 26

Infinity Ins. Co. v. Hohanessian, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. RESPONDENT KATRIN HOHANESSIAN’S UNINSURED MOTORIST ARBITRATION PROCEEDING IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On May 2, 2022, Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed this action against Respondents Katrin Hohanessian (“Respondent Hohanessian”), Serjik Tahmassian (“Respondent Tahmassian”), Vanik Keshishan (“Respondent Keshishan”), and Hilda Arakelian (“Respondent Arakelian”). The action was brought to open a superior court action with jurisdiction over the discovery issues in the uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding initiated by Respondents.

On October 10, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, 10/10/22.)

Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions against Respondent Hohanessian on January 25, 2023, which seeks an order dismissing Respondent Hohanessian’s arbitration proceeding. No opposition to the instant Motion has been filed to date.

Legal Standard

“[T]he uninsured motorist law grants the superior court the exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising under uninsured motorist arbitrations. Invested with the exclusive power to rule, and because the uninsured motorist statute makes available ‘all rights, remedies, obligations, liabilities and procedures set forth in [the Civil Discovery Act]’ [citations omitted].” (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926 (citing Ins. Code, § 11580, subd. (f).)

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).)

Discussion

On October 10, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions against Respondent Hohanessian. (Minute Order, 10/10/22.) Respondent Hohanessian was ordered to serve responses and pay $373.33 in sanctions within 20 days. (Ibid.) Notice of the order was served on Respondent Hohanessian on October 17, 2022. (Motion, Manesh Decl., Exh. A.) As of the filing of this Motion, Respondent Hohanessian has not complied with the Court’s order. (Id. at ¶4.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions with respect to the uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding are warranted for Respondent Hohanessian’s non-compliance with the order compelling responses to serve responses to the outstanding discovery. (See Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926 (citing Ins. Code, § 11580, subd. (f).) Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Respondent Hohanessian failed to serve the responses and pay the sanctions as ordered. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Respondent Hohanessian’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, Respondent Hohanessian’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.)

The request for additional monetary sanctions, however, is denied as futile and punitive.

Conclusion

Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. RESPONDENT KATRIN HOHANESSIAN’S UNINSURED MOTORIST ARBITRATION PROCEEDING IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.