Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00215, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 19CMCV00215 Hearing Date: August 16, 2022 Dept: A
19CMCV00215
Porfirio Zamora v. Fan Li, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from
Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a loan for $200,000 secured by real property
located at 15319 California Avenue in Paramount. The First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) filed on October 5, 2020, alleges that Plaintiff believed he was
borrowing money from the Li Defendants, however, Defendants allegedly tricked
Plaintiff into transferring his real property by grant deed to the Li
Defendants without satisfying the existing liens encumbering the property. Plaintiff
alleges claims for conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business
practice, and to quiet title.
On November 10,
2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. However, on May
26, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as
counsel of record. On the same date, the court granted the Motion for Summary
Judgment in favor of Defendants, Christian Ruiz Briones and Casso Homes.
II.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FILED ON JULY 19, 2022
Defendant, Luz F. Santoyo Castillo
(“Castillo”), requests an order for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff by
dismissing Castillo from this action with prejudice and to impose monetary
sanctions against Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order
of June 28, 2022, to serve verified responses without objections to written
discovery. Plaintiff also failed to comply with an October 26, 2021, order
requiring Plaintiff to appear for his deposition and provide additional
discovery responses. Failure to comply with a court’s order for discovery
constitutes abuse of the discovery process for which terminating and monetary
sanctions are warranted.
The court’s file does not reflect
that Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, although Defendant served
Plaintiff and all other parties.
III.
DISCUSSION
On June 28, 2022, the Hon. Thomas D. Long granted Castillo’s
motion compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 10 days. Motion,
Ex. 1, page 21, ¶ 4. The court also granted Castillo’s motion compelling
Plaintiff to respond without objection to Special Interrogatories, Set One;
Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Form Interrogatories, Set
One. Id., page 21, ¶ 5. The Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff
were deemed admitted. Id., page 22, ¶ 5. The court imposed sanctions of
$305 for each motion against Plaintiff, payable to Castillo within 10 days. Id.
Defense counsel declares that Plaintiff
did not serve verified responses without objection as ordered. Declaration of
Ali Z. Vaqar, ¶ 7, ¶ 19. Plaintiff also failed to appear for his deposition
scheduled for July 14, 2022, and failed to pay monetary sanctions. Id.,
¶ 20-21.
Refusing to comply with a court order to provide discovery
constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (g).
The court may impose terminating and other sanctions against the non-complying
party for such abuse by dismissing the action. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030. Monetary
sanctions are also warranted for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s
order. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Terminating and
Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Castillo is dismissed from the action
with prejudice. The court imposes monetary sanctions of $1,040.00 ($245 x 4 +
$60) against Plaintiff payable to Defendant within 10 days. Fees were not
incurred for a reply brief. The court finds that four hours to prepare the
motion and appear for the hearing is reasonable.