Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00988, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00988    Hearing Date: June 22, 2023    Dept: 26

Westlake Services, LLC v. AIG Leasing, LLC, et al.


MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Westlake Services LLC dba Westlake Financial Services’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT STRIKES DEFENDANT MARK M. AGHA AKA MARK AGHA’S ANSWER FILED ON APRIL 15, 2022.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT IS SET FOR JULY 27, 2023 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 OF THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff Westlake Services LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants AIG Leasing, LLC and Mark M. Agha aka Mark Agha (“Defendant Agha”). On February 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Amended Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (Minute Order 02/15/23.) Defendant Agha was ordered to serve verified responses and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the order. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating and monetary sanctions against Defendant Agha on March 21, 2023, which seeks an order striking Defendant’s answer and entering default judgment. No opposition has been filed to date.

Legal Standard

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 February 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Amended Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (Motion, Brown Decl., Exh. 1.) Defendant Agha was ordered to serve verified responses and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the order. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was mailed to Defendant on the same date. (Ibid.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendant Agha has not served responses nor paid sanctions as ordered. (Id. at ¶8.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Defendant Agha’s non-compliance with the orders to serve responses. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Defendant Agha failed to serve the responses as ordered. Nor has Defendant Agha filed an opposition to the instant motion for terminating and monetary sanctions. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Defendant Agha’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, Defendant Agha’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.)

However, the request is limited to striking Defendant Agha’s answer. The Motion does not provide supporting evidence with respect to entry of default judgment.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Westlake Services LLC dba Westlake Financial Services’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT STRIKES DEFENDANT MARK M. AGHA AKA MARK AGHA’S ANSWER FILED ON APRIL 15, 2022.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT IS SET FOR JULY 27, 2023 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 OF THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.