Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV31398, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31398    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant CBC Restaurant Corp dba Corner Bakery Cafe (Defendant) moves to dismiss the action of Plaintiff Noah Christie aka Noah Jaso (Plaintiff) as a terminating sanction.  Defendant additionally seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.   Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.  

ANALYSIS

When a party misuses the discovery process by disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the court in its discretion may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading or dismissing the action of the party.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2023.030, subds. (d)(1) & (d)(3); 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c); 2033.280, subd. (a).)

California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party's refusal to obey a discovery order, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions.  A court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty, . . . . Despite this broad discretion, the courts have long recognized that the terminating sanction is a drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.  A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party's fundamental right to a trial, thus implicating due process rights.  The trial court should select a sanction that is tailored to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.  Sanctions 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.

(Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604 [cleaned up].) 

Here, on January 9, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demands for Production of Documents, and further ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,191.60 within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  (See January 9, 2023 Minute Order.)  Additionally, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the Request for Admissions (RFA) and deemed admitted the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Plaintiff.  (See January 9, 2023 Minute Order.)  Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the orders on March 15, 2023, electronically and via mail.  Plaintiff thus had until April 19, 2023 to serve responses and pay the monetary sanctions. 

As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff has not served the responses or paid monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has thus disobeyed this Court’s orders of January 9, 2023.  Further, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and have thus waived the right to argue that a terminating sanction is unwarranted.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismisses Plaintiff’s action against Defendant without prejudice.  With the dismissal of the action, the Court finds the imposition of monetary sanctions to be moot.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.