Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV31993, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31993    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 29, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant Redwood Urban LLC

Responding Party: None

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No oppositions have been received.

BACKGROUND

This is the lead case in a consolidated landlord-tenant action, comprised of 24 individual actions/plaintiffs.

ANALYSIS

It is a misuse of the discovery process to fail “to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” (CCP § 2023.010(d)) or to disobey “a court order to provide discovery.”  (CCP § 2023.010(g).)  Under CCP § 2023.030, courts have the authority to issue monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, or terminating sanctions after giving parties proper notice and the opportunity to be heard.

In determining whether sanctions should be imposed, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.”  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)   “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”  (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 952, 959.)

Defendant moves for issue, evidence, terminating and/or monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Jonathan Lipman, Sonja Harchanko, Whitney Jene Harchanko and Johal Harpreet on the ground that they have failed to comply with their discovery obligations.

Defendant asserts Plaintiffs Jonathan Lipman, Sonja Harchanko, and Whitney Jene Harchanko failed to respond to written discovery in violation of Court orders and failed to appear for deposition. Defendant asserts Johal Harpreet has failed to appear for deposition in violation of a Court order.

Terminating sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiffs have obstructed basic discovery into their claims for more than a year. Plaintiffs have not opposed Defendant’s motions or complied with the Court’s orders. Plaintiffs’ conduct implies they are no longer prosecuting this action.

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.