Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case Number: 20STCV34867, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV34867, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV34867 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Evidence Sanctions and Additional Monetary Sanction against Defendant West Valley MRI, Inc. for Disobeying June 27, 2023 Court Order

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

Resp. Party: Defendant West Valley MRI, Inc.

SUBJECT: Motion for Evidence Sanctions and Additional Monetary Sanction against Defendant SoCal Imaging for Disobeying June 27, 2023 Court Order

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

Resp. Party: Defendant SoCal Imaging, Inc.

The Motion for Sanctions on West Valley MRI, Inc. is GRANTED. Defendant West Valley MRI, Inc. and its counsel, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay $3,600.00 to Plaintiffs.

The Motion for Sanctions on SoCal Imaging, Inc. is GRANTED. Defendant SoCal Imaging, Inc. and its counsel, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay $3,600.00 to Plaintiffs.

Defendants West Valley MRI, Inc. and SoCal Imaging, Inc. are PROHIBITED from introducing evidence at trial in the manner requested by Plaintiffs. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:18 – p. 3:3.)

BACKGROUND:

On September 11, 2020, Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company filed as qui tam relators on behalf of the People of the State of California their Complaint against Defendants Simon Gamzaletova, Reymond Gamzaletova, Farideh Kohan, Mustafa Asghari, West Valley MRI, Inc., and SoCal Imaging on causes of action for violations of the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

On April 16, 2021, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint by substituting SoCal Imaging for its true name of SoCal Imaging, Inc.

On August 6, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.

On September 13, 2022, Plaintiffs amended their First Amended Complaint by substituting George Mednik, M.D., Ranon Udkoff, M.D., Sepehr Katiraie, M.D., Lynwood Medical Imaging, Inc., Udkoff Medical Imaging Corporation, and Mednik Medical Corporation for previously-unidentified defendants.

On January 3, 2023, pursuant to the Stipulation of Plaintiffs and Defendants Sepehr Katiraie and Lynwood Medical Imaging, Inc., the Court dismissed with prejudice the First Amended Complaint as to those Defendants. The Court retained jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of this settlement.

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

On February 22, 2023, Defendants Ranon Udkoff and Udkoff Medical Imaging Corporation filed their Amended Answer.

On April 27, 2023, George Mednik and Mednik Medical Corporation filed their Answer to the SAC.

On April 27, 2023, by request of Plaintiffs, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Simon Gamzaletova, Reymond Gamzaletova, Farideh Kohan, and Mustafa Asghari.

On May 1, 2023, Simon Gamzaletova, Reymond Gamzaletova, Farideh Kohan, Mustafa Asghari, West Valley MRI, Inc., and SoCal Imaging, Inc. filed their Answer to the SAC.

On June 27, 2023, the Court ordered Defendants West Valley MRI, Inc. and SoCal Imaging, Inc. to produce further responses to certain requests for production of documents propounded on them by Plaintiffs. The Court also ordered these Defendants to each pay Plaintiffs $800.00 in monetary sanctions.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed: (1) Motion for Evidence Sanctions and Additional Monetary Sanction against Defendant West Valley MRI, Inc. for Disobeying June 27, 2023 Court Order (“Motion for Sanctions on West Valley MRI, Inc.”); and (2) Motion for Evidence Sanctions and Additional Monetary Sanction against Defendant SoCal Imaging for Disobeying June 27, 2023 Court Order (“Motion for Sanctions on SoCal Imaging, Inc.”). With each of these motions, Plaintiffs concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (2) Declaration of Melissa M. Marquez; (3) Separate Statement; and (4) Proposed Order.

On August 18, 2023, Defendants West Valley MRI, Inc. and SoCal Imaging, Inc. filed their respective Oppositions to the motions.

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their respective Replies regarding the motions. With each Reply, Plaintiffs concurrently filed Declaration of Melissa M. Marquez.

ANALYSIS:

I. Legal Standard

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:

. . .

“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.

. . .

“(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. . . .”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)

“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process:

“(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

“(b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.

“(c) The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a)–(c).)

II. Discussion

According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have failed to produce further responses or pay their monetary sanctions. (See Decls. Marquez in support of Motions for Sanctions, ¶ 7.)

Defendants do not dispute that they have failed to produce further responses or pay their monetary sanctions. They only claim that their failure to comply with the Court’s Order was due to inadvertent mistake and that they intended to comply. (Oppositions, Decl. Reymond Gamzaletova and Decl. Simon Gamzaletova, ¶ 3.) In fact, in both oppositions, each Defendant independently states that “Defendant insists that its failure to comply with the Court Order was not intentional and resulted from inadvertent mistakes and miscommunications within the Defendant’s company. Defendant intended to timely comply with the Court Order, but the deadlines to file went unnoticed by Defendant. (See Gamzeletova Decl.)” (See West Valley MRI Opposition, p. 2:12-15; SoCal Imaging Opposition, p. 2:11-14.)

Notably, Defendants do not state when they intend to comply with the Court’s Order dated June 27, 2023, and Plaintiffs state in their Replies that Defendants have still not complied – or even indicated when they intend to comply – with the Court’s Order dated June 27, 2023. (Replies, p. 2:5–10.)

The Court finds that Defendants West Valley MRI, Inc. and SoCal Imaging, Inc. have misused the discovery process by (1) failing to provide further responses to authorized discovery and (2) failing to comply with the Court’s Order dated June 27, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)

Plaintiffs request monetary and evidentiary sanctions here. Specifically, Plaintiffs request $3,600.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant West Valley MRI, Inc. and its counsel, $3,600.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant SoCal Imaging, Inc. and its counsel, and prohibitions on both of these Defendants from introducing certain evidence at trial. (Proposed Orders, p. 2.)

Trial is less than two months away. Defendants’ failure to provide further discovery responses and comply with the Court’s Order dated June 27, 2023 has created substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs, who are attempting to litigate this case on a timely basis. The sanctions requested are reasonable and appropriate given these Defendants’ blatant misuse of the discovery process, the proximity of trial, and the lack of any indication that they will comply with further orders.

The Court GRANTS the Motion for Sanctions on West Valley MRI, Inc. and the Motion for Sanctions on SoCal Imaging, Inc.

III. Conclusion

The Motion for Sanctions on West Valley MRI, Inc. is GRANTED. Defendant West Valley MRI, Inc. and its counsel, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay $3,600.00 to Plaintiffs.

The Motion for Sanctions on SoCal Imaging, Inc. is GRANTED. Defendant SoCal Imaging, Inc. and its counsel, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay $3,600.00 to Plaintiffs.

Defendants West Valley MRI, Inc. and SoCal Imaging, Inc. are PROHIBITED from introducing evidence at trial in the manners requested by Plaintiffs.