Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 19CHCV00892, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 19CHCV00892, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 19CHCV00892 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/7/25 TRIAL DATE: 3/24/25

Case #19CHCV00892

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Motion filed on 8/12/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Padita Ayana

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jamal Salim Nasrallah

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order imposing terminating sanctions to dismiss Plaintiff’s case with prejudice as to Defendant Padita Ayana under CCP 2023.030(d)(3), 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s 6/3/24 order requiring Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Bryan Castorina, to pay sanctions in the amount of $460.00 within 30 days.

Alternatively, Defendant Padita Ayana requests that issue and evidentiary sanctions be imposed precluding Plaintiff from presenting any evidence at trial, including testimony on any of the matters addresses by the unanswered discovery.

Additionally, Defendant Padita Ayana seeks an order imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $460.00.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a landlord tenant dispute regarding property located at 13547 Osborne Street in Arleta, California. On 11/4/19, Plaintiff Jamal Salim Nasrallah (Plaintiff) filed this action alleging causes of action for: (1) forcible entry and (2) forcible detainer against Padita Ayana and Parawan Ayana.

On 5/10/22, default was entered against Padita Ayana. Also on 5/10/22, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment naming Padita Ayana as Trustee of the Parawan Ayana Living Trust. On 5/11/22, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered a dismissal without prejudice of Parawan Ayana. (See 5/11/22 Minute Order). On 6/6/22, the Court entered an order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties setting aside the default entered against Padita Ayana.

On 12/7/22, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which again asserted causes of action for: (1) forcible entry and (2) forcible detainer. On 2/28/23, the Court sustained, in part, Padita Ayana’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and granted Padita Ayana’s motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint, both with leave to amend. (See 2/28/23 Minute Order). On 4/4/23, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint for forcible entry against Padita Ayana, individually (Padita), and as Trustee of the Parawan Ayana Living Trust (Trustee) (collectively, Defendant). On 7/25/23, Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint was denied. On 8/14/23, Padita filed an answer.

On 8/15/23, Padita served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set 1, making answers due 9/18/23. (Petrosyan Decl. ¶7). Despite being granted multiple extensions of time to respond, Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to the subject discovery. (Id. ¶8). Therefore, on 11/7/23, Padita filed and served a motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified answers, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and for monetary sanctions. (Id. ¶9). On 6/3/24, this Court heard and granted the motion ordering Plaintiff to provide responses without objections and for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay sanctions in the amount of $460.00, both within 30 days. (Id. ¶10, Ex.A). Plaintiff failed to provide responses and the sanctions ordered were not paid.

Therefore, on 8/12/24, Padita filed and served the instant motion seeking an order imposing terminating sanctions to dismiss Plaintiff’s case with prejudice as to Defendant Padita Ayana under CCP 2023.030(d)(3), 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s 6/3/24 order requiring Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Bryan Castorina, to pay sanctions in the amount of $460.00 within 30 days.

Additionally, Defendant Padita Ayana seeks an order imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $460.00.

Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

If a party fails to obey a court order to provide discovery responses, the Court may impose whatever sanctions are just, including, monetary sanctions, issues sanctions, evidence sanctions and/or terminating sanctions. See CCP 2023.030(a), (b), (c); CCP 2023.030(d)(1), (3); CCP 2030.290(c).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the discovery despite being granted multiple extensions and ultimately being ordered to do so by this Court. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to oppose or otherwise respond to this motion explaining the failure to comply with Plaintiff’s discovery obligations. As such, the Court finds that imposing terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s action as against Defendant Padita Ayana are warranted.

The request for additional monetary sanctions is denied as the motion fails to indicate against whom such sanctions are sought (i.e., Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, or both). See CCP 2023.040. Additionally, the conclusion portion of the motion indicates that the request for monetary sanctions is part of the alternative request for relief, if terminating sanctions are not granted. (See Motion, p.8:1-9).

CONCLUSION

The request for terminating sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s case as against Defendant Padita Ayana is dismissed with prejudice. Based on the foregoing, the request for issue and/or evidence sanctions is moot. The request for additional monetary sanctions is denied.