Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23NWLC00793, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWLC00793 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: 26
Creditors
Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Perez, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2023.010)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion for
Terminating Sanctions is CONTINUED TO APRIL 16, 2024 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT
26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY APRIL 5, 2024, PLAINTIFF MAY FILE AND
SERVE A REPLY TO ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION DECLARATION.
ANALYSIS:
On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff
Creditor Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)
filed this collections action against Defendant Ronnie M. Perez
(“Defendant”). Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint on April 25, 2023. On
November 1, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses
to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; and (2)
Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions. (Minute Order, 11/01/23.) The Court ordered
Defendant to serve responses and to pay sanctions within 20 days. (Ibid.)
Defendant filed the
instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on December 20, 2023.
The Motion was set for hearing on February 6, 2024, but was
transferred from Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse to Department 26
of the Spring Street Courthouse. (Minute Order, 02/06/24.) Defendant filed an
opposing declaration on March 20, 2024.
Discussion
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
The Court granted Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses
to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; and (2)
Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions. (Minute Order, 11/01/23; Motion, Brown
Decl., Exh. 1.) The Court ordered Defendant to serve responses and to pay
sanctions within 20 days. (Ibid.) Notice of the order was served on
Defendant on November 8, 2023. (Ibid.) As of the filing of this
Motion, Defendant had not complied with the order to serve responses or pay
sanctions. (Id. at ¶5.) However, Defendant apparently served verified
responses on March 20, 2024 and an opposition declaration to the instant
Motion. In light of this untimely opposition, to which Plaintiff has not had an
opportunity to respond, the Court will continue the hearing on the instant
Motion to allow for a reply.
Conclusion
Moving party to give notice.