Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV052251010, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 23STCV052251010 Hearing Date: October 24, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: October
24, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant
Lemonade Insurance Agency, LLC
Responding
Party: Plaintiff Armani Marsalis Gates, I
Defendant Lemonade Insurance Agency, LLC’s Motion for
Terminating Sanction Against Armani Marsalis Gates, I
The Court
considered the moving papers. No opposition was received.
The
motion is GRANTED. The Court orders that Plaintiff’s action against
Defendant be dismissed.
The
court DENIES Plaintiff’s request, in the alternative, for monetary
sanctions.
Background
This
action arises from an alleged breach of an insurance contract between Plaintiff
Armani Marsalis Gates, I (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Lemonade Insurance Agency,
LLC (“Defendant”) based on Defendant’s alleged failure to pay the full
replacement costs for various goods stolen from Plaintiff’s residence. On March
9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint, in pro per, alleging causes
of action for (1) breach of contract, and (2) intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
On July 5, 2023,
Defendant propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff, including the following:
Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”); Requests for Admissions, Set One
(“RFAs”); Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”); and Request for
Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPDs”). (Hadikusumo Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. A, B,
C, D.) Responses were originally due on August 8, 2023. (Ibid.)
On
August 9, 2023, having received no response, Defendant reached out to Plaintiff
to meet and confer regarding the status of Plaintiff’s responses. (Hadikusumo
Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. E.) Plaintiff stated that he required additional time to
prepare his responses because he is a proper litigant. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh.
F.) Defendant agreed to extend Plaintiff’s final deadline to respond until
September 6, 2023. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. G.)
Defendant
never received Plaintiff’s responses.
Between
September 25, 2023, to December 28, 2023, Defendant filed four separate motions
to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s propounded discovery, including
a motion to compel responses to FROGs; motion to compel responses to SROGs;
motion to compel responses to RFPDs; and motion to deem as admitted the truth
of the matters set forth in RFAs. Each motion was unopposed.
On
April 15, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Deem
Admitted RFAs. The Court’s deemed as admitted the matters set forth in the RFAs
against Plaintiff. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay $540 in monetary
sanctions. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing through LA Court Connect, and
Defendant also served notice of the Court’s Order on Plaintiff on April 15,
2024.
On
July 8, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs and SROGs. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to
pay $900 in monetary sanctions. Plaintiff also appeared at this hearing through
LA Court Connect. Defendant also served notice of the Court’s Order on
Plaintiff on July 16, 2024, pursuant to the Court’s Nunc Pro Tunc Order
amending a clerical error in the original Minute Order.
On
July 9, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s responses to RFPDs. The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses
and pay $1,500 in monetary sanctions. Plaintiff did not appear at
this hearing. However, as before, Defendant served notice of the Court’s Order
on Plaintiff on July 10, 2024.
To date,
Plaintiff has openly violated each of the Court’s prior orders by failing to
pay all $2,940 in monetary sanctions, and by failing to submit any of the
compelled responses to Defendant’s propounded discovery.
On September 25,
2024, Defendant filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions. No
opposition was received.
Legal
Standard
If a party fails to comply with a
court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the
court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (CCP § 2030.290(c)
(interrogatories); § 2031.300(c) (demands for production of documents); §
2033.290(e) (requests for admission). CCP § 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the
extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method …,
the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after
opportunity for hearing, may impose … [monetary, issue, evidence, or
terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of
the discovery process ….” CCP § 2023.010 provides that “[m]isuses of the
discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: … (d) [f]ailing
to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery… (g) [d]isobeying
a court order to provide discovery….”
“The trial court
may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the
totality of the circumstances: [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.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating
sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful,
preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe
sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court
is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra,
223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390, citation omitted.)
“Under this
standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties
have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, supra,
at p. 390, citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at 1244-1246 (discussing
cases); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21
Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants
failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto
Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved
on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, fn.
4 (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a
discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)
Discussion
Defendant
requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s action for his repeated failure to
obey the Court’s orders, or, in the alternative, for imposing further monetary
sanctions. Defendant contends that
Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrates willful refusal to provide even basic
discovery in this matter, and an open disregard for the Court’s repeated order
to do so.
Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s
conduct in this matter demonstrates a willful abuse of the mutual discovery
process. Despite Plaintiff’s acknowledgement of the Court’s Orders, Plaintiff
openly refuses to comply based on a belief that his status as an “in pro per”
litigant excuses or justifies his behavior. This contention cannot stand, pro
per litigants are required to follow the same rules of procedure as a
professional attorney. (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98; Bistawros
v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.) Further, a Court’s authority
to issue binding orders is not diminished based on a party’s status as a pro
per litigant.
Based on Plaintiff’s open refusal to
comply with the Court’s orders and basic rules of discovery procedure, the Court
finds that imposing terminating sanctions against Defendant is proper. The Court
also finds that Plaintiff’s alternative request for imposing terminating
sanctions is not necessary since terminating sanctions are an adequate remedy.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for repeated
failure to obey the Court’s orders.
The Court orders that Plaintiff’s
action against Defendant be dismissed.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s
alternative request for further monetary sanctions.
It
is so ordered.
Dated:
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court