Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00305, Date: 2023-06-20 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: 22CMCV00305 Hearing Date: August 24, 2023 Dept: A
22CMCV00305 Suleyma Rosales v. City of Paramount, David Johnson
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
DISCOVERY ORDER AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ISSUE AND/OR EVIDENCE SANCTIONS
The complaint alleges
that Defendant, City of Paramount (“City”), employed Plaintiff and Defendant,
David Johnson (“Johnson”), who was Plaintiff’s supervisor. Plaintiff alleges
that Johnson engaged in acts of discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff
based on her race and national origin. Plaintiff alleges claims in violation of
the Fair Employment and Housing Act and a claim for whistleblower protection.
On May 15, 2023, the
Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for
Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the Case Management Conference. On June 20,
2023, the Court granted the City’s motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to
three sets of written discovery and imposed monetary sanctions. (Decl. of Warren M. Williams, Ex. H.) Plaintiff did not appear at that hearing and did not file
oppositions. The Court issued a second order to show cause why sanctions should
not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the June 20 hearing. Neither
Plaintiff nor counsel complied with the Court’s order requiring discovery
responses and payment of sanctions. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.)
City request an order
dismissing the action, or entering Plaintiff’s default, or staying the
proceedings until Plaintiff complies with the Court’s order. City served the
motion by electronic delivery on July 31, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an
opposition.
A party’s failure to
respond to an order to provide discovery responses constitutes an abuse of the
discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 subd. (g).)
The court may impose specified types of sanctions including terminating
sanctions depending on the circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 subd. (a)
through (d).) A sanction order, however,
“cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery.” (Newland v. Superior Court (1995)
40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613.) The
principle is rooted in constitutional due process. The type of sanction imposed
should be “appropriate to the dereliction,” and tailored to accomplish the
discovery sought. (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin
& Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 35.) Terminating sanctions are to be used “sparingly because of the
drastic effect of their application.” (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191.) The imposition of terminating sanctions may be imposed “as a
first measure in extreme cases, or where the record shows lesser sanctions
would be ineffective.” (Id. at 191–192.)
Strict standards must
be met before terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Moofly
Productions, LLC v. Favila (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1, 12.) However, where
a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence demonstrates
that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery
rules, imposing terminating sanctions is justified. (Id.)
As Plaintiff failed to
comply with the Court’s order, nor opposed the motion, the Court GRANTS the
City’s motion and enters an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court
also GRANTS City’s request for imposition of monetary sanctions of $450 against
Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally. The Court finds that $225 per
hour is a reasonable fee and that two hours to prepare the motion is
reasonable. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to the City within 10 days.