Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV02137, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02137 Hearing Date: April 4, 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
DEPARTMENT |
32 |
HEARING DATE |
April
4, 2023 |
CASE NUMBER |
22STCV02137 |
MOTION |
Motion
for Terminating Sanctions |
MOVING PARTY |
Defendant
RP Automotive II, Inc. dba Penske Cadillac Buick GMC Southbay |
OPPOSING PARTY |
None |
MOTION
Defendant RP Automotive II, Inc. dba
Penske Cadillac Buick GMC Southbay (Defendant) moves to dismiss the action of
Plaintiff Edward Bullock (Plaintiff) as a terminating sanction. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
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).)
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].)
Equally important, “a terminating sanction issued solely because of a
failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.” (Newland v. Superior Court (1995)
40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
Here, on December 6, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve
verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories,
set one, Special Interrogatories, set one, and Request for Production of
Documents, set one, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. (See December
6, 2022 Minute Order.) Defendant gave
Plaintiffs notice of the Court’s order on December 7, 2022, by mail. Plaintiff thus had until January 11, 2023, to
serve responses in compliance with the Court’s order of December 6, 2022.
As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff has not served the responses. Plaintiff has thus disobeyed this Court’s
order of December 6, 2022. Further, Plaintiff
has not opposed the motion, and has 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 a terminating
sanction, and dismisses the action of Plaintiff Edward Bullock without prejudice.
Defendant shall provide notice
of this Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.