Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01280, Date: 2025-04-17 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: 22CHCV01280 Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/17/25
TRIAL DATE: 11/10/25
Case #22CHCV01280
MOTION TO
COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER
&
FOR SANCTIONS
Motion filed on 1/9/25.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Pacoima Plaza Shopping Center, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Araceli Ayala
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling
Plaintiff Araceli Ayala to comply with this Court’s 3/26/24 discovery order requiring
Plaintiff to serve further, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Pacoima Plaza Shopping Center, LLC’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Request
for Production of Documents, Set 1.
Further, Pacoima Plaza requests an order imposing:
(2)
an evidentiary sanction barring Plaintiff from introducing any evidence at
trial in support of her loss of earnings/earning capacity claims, or any
evidence supporting her claims for past/future medical expenses other than
evidence pertaining to past treatment rendered by Providence Holy Cross.
RULING: The motion is denied, in part, and
granted, in part, as set forth below.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Araceli Ayala’s claim
that on 12/17/20 she was assaulted and battered by an unidentified third party
while shopping at a shopping center owned by Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Pacoima Plaza Shopping Center, LLC (Pacoima Plaza). Plaintiff alleges that Pacoima Plaza is
liable for the alleged incident because it failed to provide adequate security
at the premises. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates
that she is seeking damages for hospital and medical expenses, wage loss and
loss of earning capacity.
On 3/26/24, this Court granted Pacoima Plaza’s motions to
compel further responses thereby ordering Plaintiff to serve further, verified responses
to Pacoima Plaza’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Requests for Production of
Documents, Set 1, without objections, within 30 days. (See 3/26/24 Minute Order). Plaintiff never served the further responses
ordered. (Omidwar Decl. ¶¶8-9).
Therefore, on 1/9/24, Pacoima Plaza filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff Araceli Ayala to comply
with this Court’s 3/26/24 discovery order requiring Plaintiff to serve further,
verified responses, without objection, to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Pacoima
Plaza Shopping Center, LLC’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Request for
Production of Documents, Set 1.
Further, Pacoima Plaza requests an order imposing:
(1) an issue sanction requiring a finding at trial that
Plaintiff did not suffer any loss of earnings/earning capacity whatsoever, nor
incur any past/future medical expenses outside of those arising from past
treatment rendered by the single healthcare provider disclosed by Plaintiff in
discovery proceedings thus far (i.e. Providence Holy Cross); and/or
(2) an evidentiary sanction barring Plaintiff from
introducing any evidence at trial in support of her loss of earnings/earning
capacity claims, or any evidence supporting her claims for past/future medical
expenses other than evidence pertaining to past treatment rendered by
Providence Holy Cross.
Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the
motion.
ANALYSIS
Since the Court has already ordered Plaintiff to provide
further, verified responses, without objections, to Pacoima Plaza’s Form
Interrogatories, Set 1, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, and Plaintiff
has failed to comply with the order, the Court finds no point in reissuing the
same order.
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey this Court’s 3/26/24
order compelling further responses to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to provide the
responses as promised after being contacted by Pacoima Plaza’s counsel in
November of 2024, the Court finds that imposing the issue and evidentiary
sanctions requested by Pacoima Plaza against Plaintiff is warranted. See CCP 2023.010(g); CCP 2023.030(b)-(c);
CCP 2030.300(e).
The Court also finds that imposing monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Fahad Sharif, to
compensate Pacoima Plaza for the time spent in relation to this motion is
warranted. CCP 2023.010(g); CCP
2023.030(a); CCP 2030.300(e). However, Pacoima
Plaza’s request for an additional $1,000.00 in “bad faith sanctions” is not
properly supported. Presumably, the
request is made pursuant to CCP 2023.050; however, Pacoima Plaza has failed to
cite this statute in its memorandum of points and authorities. (See Memorandum of Points &
Authorities, generally).
The Court finds that an award of sanctions in the amount
of $1,845.00 (4 hours to prepare the motion + 1
hour to prepare for the hearing and appear multiplied by $369/hour) is just and
reasonable to compensate Pacoima Plaza for the attorney fees incurred in
relation to this motion.
CONCLUSION
The request for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply
with this Court’s 3/26/24 discovery order is denied on the ground that the
Court has already issued an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further
responses to Pacoima Plaza’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1; therefore, another order for essentially the
same relief is unnecessary.
The request for the imposition of issue and evidentiary
sanctions against Plaintiff is granted.
An issue sanction is imposed such that at trial it will be determined
that Plaintiff did not suffer any loss of earnings/earning capacity whatsoever,
nor incur any past/future medical expenses outside of those arising from past
treatment rendered by the single healthcare provider disclosed by Plaintiff in
discovery proceedings thus far (i.e. Providence Holy Cross). Additionally, an evidentiary sanction is imposed against
Plaintiff barring Plaintiff from introducing any evidence at trial in support
of her loss of earnings/earning capacity claims, or any evidence supporting her
claims for past/future medical expenses other than evidence pertaining to past
treatment rendered by Providence Holy Cross.
The request for monetary sanctions is granted. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and
her attorney, Fahad Sharif, in the amount of $1,845.00, payable within 30 days.
The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4)
Pacoima Plaza’s counsel has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits
attached to the declaration filed in support of the motion. Counsel for the parties are warned that
failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being
continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule, papers
not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.