Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP01625, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP01625 Hearing Date: February 23, 2023 Dept: 26
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(CCP
§ 2023.010)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for
Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. RESPONDENT SERJIK TAHMASSIAN’s UNINSURED
MOTORIST ARBITRATION PROCEEDING IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
On May 2, 2022,
Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) 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 matters in the uninsured motorist
arbitration proceeding initiated by Respondents.
On October 11,
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, 10/11/22.)
Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary
Sanctions against Respondent Tahmassian on January 25, 2023, which seeks an order dismissing Respondent Tahmassian’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 11,
2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s Motions
to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One and for
Monetary Sanctions against Respondent Tahmassian. (Minute Order, 10/11/22.)
Respondent Tahmassian was ordered to
serve responses and pay $373.33 in sanctions within 20 days. (Ibid.)
Notice of the order was served on Respondent Tahmassian on October 17, 2022. (Motion, Manesh Decl.,
Exh. A.) As of the filing of this Motion, Respondent Tahmassian 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 Tahmassian’s
non-compliance with the order compelling responses to serve responses to the
outstanding discovery. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Respondent Tahmassian’s
failed to serve the responses and pay the sanctions as ordered. Given the
notice provided, the Court finds Respondent Tahmassian’s failure to comply with
the discovery order to be willful. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh
penalty, Respondent Tahmassian’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 SERJIK TAHMASSIAN’s UNINSURED
MOTORIST ARBITRATION PROCEEDING IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.