Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC02373, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02373    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 26

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Eghbal, et al. 

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Lanay Miller’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT STRIKES DEFENDANTS RAYMOND WANG, CHIALEE LIN, AND ALBERT LEWIS PALMIERI’S JOINT ANSWER FILED ON AUGUST 2, 2021.

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

ANALYSIS:

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Hooman S. Eghbal aka Hooman Eghbal dba Water Worx Pressure Wash (“Defendant”) for breach of contract. Defendant filed an Answer on June 6, 2022. On November 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, 11/03/22.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions against Defendant on December 22, 2022, which seeks an order striking Defendant’s Answer and entering their default. 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 November 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, 11/03/22.) Defendant was ordered to serve responses and pay $623.30 in sanctions within 20 days. (Ibid.) Notice of the order was mailed to Defendant the next date. (Motion, Jun Decl., Exh. 2.) As of the filing of this Motion, Defendant has not complied with the Court’s order. (Id. at ¶4.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Defendant’s non-compliance with the order compelling responses to serve responses to the outstanding discovery. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Defendant failed to serve the responses and pay the sanctions as ordered. Nor has Defendant filed an opposition to the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Defendant’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, Defendant’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’s Answer. As set forth about, terminating sanctions do not include the entry of default.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT STRIKES HOOMAN S. EGHBAL AKA HOOMAN EGHBAL DBA WATER WORX PRESSURE WASH’S ANSWER FILED ON JUNE 6, 2022.

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

Moving party to give notice.