Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC01903, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC01903    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: 26

Westlake Services, LLC v. Wright, 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 DENIED. THE SANCTIONS ORDER OF OCTOBER 3 2023 IS SET ASIDE NUNC PRO TUNC. AN ODER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT IS SET FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff Westlake Services LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Quinetta Wright (“Defendant”). On October 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (Minute Order 10/03/23.) Defendant 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 on November 8, 2023, which seeks an order striking Defendant’s answer and entering default. No opposition has been filed to date.

Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have the 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 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (Motion, Friedman Decl., Exh. C.) Defendant 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 has not served responses nor paid sanctions as ordered. (Id. at ¶5.) Defendant now moves for terminating sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 by striking Defendant’s answer and entering default judgment.

However, it has come to the Court’s attention through the filing of this Motion that Defendant never filed a response to the Complaint or otherwise appeared in this action. Plaintiff never sought to enter Defendant’s default, as it should have done pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585, and instead filed discovery motions. In light of Defendant’s non-appearance, the Court finds that terminating sanctions would be improper. There is no answer by Defendant to strike and Plaintiff has not provided evidence in support of its request for default judgment. Plaintiff is to file a request for entry of Defendant’s default within 20 days of this order.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.