Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV31148, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31148    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1.     Background 

On September 3, 2019, Plaintiffs Nicolas Barbieri and Keonta Beasley (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an action against Defendant Calin Stoica (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident.  Plaintiff Barbieri settled his case with Defendant and signed a release. 

Defendant moves for an order for terminating sanctions in the form of a dismissal of Plaintiff Beasley’s complaint for her failure to obey the Court’s December 16, 2022, order to respond to discovery.

The motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g) and 2023.030(3).  The motion is unopposed.

2.     Motion for Terminating Sanctions 

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g) provide that “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” are misuses of the discovery process.  Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process.  Further, a court may impose terminating sanctions by “[a]n order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d)(3).) 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, 795-796.)

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 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 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)  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, 84 Cal.App.3d at 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."  (Ibid.)  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].)

Here, Plaintiff Barbieri’s claim was resolved through settlement and release, and Defendant moves for an order for terminating sanctions in the form of a dismissal of Plaintiff Beasley’s complaint. (Bartholomew Decl., ¶ 5.)  Defendant offers evidence that Plaintiff Beasley failed to respond to form interrogatories and demand for production of documents.  (Id., ¶¶ 2, 4, 6.)  Specifically, on December 16, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses, and ordered Plaintiff to respond to discovery, without objections, within 30 days.  (Id., ¶ 2.)  However, Plaintiff never responded to discovery.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond pursuant to the Court’s December 16, 2022, order.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  Further, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and appears to have abandoned the case. 

Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time.  Plaintiff Beasley’s action against Defendant is hereby dismissed.

Defendant does not seek monetary sanctions in connection with this motion, and the Court does not impose monetary sanctions.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

·         Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

·         If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the Court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

·         Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

·         If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

Dated this 18^th day of May, 2023