Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2023-00002963-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00002963-CU-PA-NC BREMERMANN VS HILTON [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Motion, 05/24/2024

The Motion for Terminating Sanctions brought by defendant Janean Hilton (Ms. Hilton) is GRANTED.

The Request for Monetary Sanctions brought by Ms. Hilton is DENIED. The matter has been properly noticed, with proof of service on file. The motion is unopposed. Failure to oppose constitutes a waiver and/or admission that a matter is meritorious.

Ms. Hilton has established, with evidence, that plaintiff Claudia Bremermann (Plaintiff) has, after originally failing to respond to properly-made discovery requests, failed to comply with a court order to respond to said discovery requests. The Court also notes that Plaintiff's attorney previously sought to be relieved as counsel in this case. That relief was granted, but Plaintiff's attorney never filed the proof of service that was required to make the relief effective. As such, the Court notes a bit of a 'cloud' on the status of Plaintiff's representation. It nonetheless appears to the Court that Plaintiff has abandoned her case by failing to respond to discovery and by failing to communicate with her attorney. Moreover, after this Court continued the instant motion and required the moving party to serve both Plaintiff and her former counsel, it appears that Plaintiff may be dodging personal service.

The Court commends the moving party, Ms. Hilton, for subsequent efforts to serve notice of the motion, which went above and beyond what the Court originally ordered. As a result, the Court is satisfied that the motion has been properly served. Plaintiff making no objection or opposition to the motion, the Court thus concludes that dismissal – though harsh – is an appropriate and just result in this case.

However, to the extent that terminating sanctions are the harshest discovery sanction and will effectively bring the case to a close, the Court concludes that additional monetary sanctions will have no additional impact in terms of obtaining compliance with either a court order or the discovery code. As such, the Court finds that other circumstances make the further imposition of monetary sanctions unjust in this case.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3121881