Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV35495, Date: 2023-08-15 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: 22STCV35495    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Sonia Recinos, Monica Lopez, Jennifer Recinos, and Monica Natalie Lopez

Resp. Party:    None

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.  Defendant’s Answer is STRICKEN. Default is ENTERED against Defendant.

        The Court declines to award monetary sanctions in addition to the terminating sanctions that are being imposed.

        The Court sets an OSC re Entry of Default Judgement for December ___, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

        On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs Sonia Recinos, Monica Lopez, Jennifer Recinos, and Monica Natalie Lopez filed their Complaint against Defendant Hani Mammo on causes of action arising from Plaintiffs’ tenancy in Defendant’s apartment building.

        On November 10, 2022, the Court appointed Monica Lopez to be the Guardian ad Litem for Jennifer Recinos and Monica Natalie Lopez, who are minors.

        On April 27, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer.

        On July 11, 2023, the Court imposed monetary sanctions on Defendant’s counsel for failure to file his Case Management Statement at two consecutive Case Management Conferences.

        On August 15, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant to respond within 10 days to Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. The Court also awarded monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant and Defense Counsel, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1,625.00.

        On August 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”). Plaintiffs concurrently filed their Proposed Order.

        No oppositions or other responses have been filed to the motions. 

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795–96.)

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Id. at p. 793.) "A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction." (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Ca1.App.4th 262, 279–80.)

While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these 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." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Id.) Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971.)

"A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions . . . (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply with a court order, and (2) the failure must be willful." (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; but see Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1291 ["willfulness is no longer a requirement for the imposition of discovery sanctions."].)

II.       Discussion

Plaintiffs move the Court to issue terminating sanctions against Defendant by striking Defendant’s answer and entering default against Defendant. (Motion, p. 5:19–21.) Plaintiffs further request $1,300.00 in monetary sanctions. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues that these requests for relief are appropriate because Defendant has not responded to the discovery requests, Defendant has disobeyed the Court’s order regarding discovery, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel has spent two hours at $650.00 per hour on this Motion. (Id., Decl. Diaz, ¶¶ 6–7.)

Defendant did not oppose the motions to compel, nor has Defendant opposed this Motion, which if granted, would terminate the case. The Court has no evidence before it that indicates Defendant complied with the Court’s order or that any sanction would result in Defendant serving responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

The Court is also aware that:

·       Defendant had default entered against it for failing to file an answer (although that default was later vacated);

·       Defense counsel has never yet appeared at any hearing before this Court;

·       The Court has previously imposed monetary sanctions on Defense counsel;

·       Defendant did not oppose the previous motion to compel it to respond to discovery

·       Defendant has not opposed this motion for terminating sanctions.

Lastly, the Court posted its original tentative granting the request for terminating sanctions on September 21, 2023.  As of October 19, 2023, defendant has still not filed an opposition to this motion.

In short, Defendant has not participated in this litigation. 

III.     Conclusion

The Motion is GRANTED.  Defendant’s Answer is STRICKEN. Default is ENTERED against Defendant.

        The Court declines to award monetary sanctions in addition to the terminating sanctions that are being imposed.

The Court sets an OSC re Entry of Default Judgement for December ___, 2023.