Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV22116, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22116    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1.     Background 

On June 11, 2020, Plaintiffs Maryam Sadeghi-Talash and Indira Pacheco (“Pacheco”) filed an action against Defendants Taylor Brooke and Ashley Barrett for damages arising from an automobile accident.

Defendants Brooke Davey (erroneously sued as Taylor Brooke) and Ashley Barrett (collectively “Defendants”) move for an order for terminating sanctions in the form of a dismissal of Plaintiff Pacheco’s case for failure to obey the Court’s Order of December 28, 2022.  Defendants also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions.

The motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d)(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, the Court finds Defendants have proffered evidence demonstrating Plaintiff Pacheco’s failure to obey a court order.  On December 8, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents.  (Yerzinkyan Decl., ¶ 5.)   This Court ordered Plaintiff Pacheco to serve verified responses to Defendant Barrett’s Form Interrogatories and Request for Production, without objection, within (10) days.  (Id.)  The Court also imposed a monetary sanction of $940.95 on Plaintiff Pacheco’s counsel but not Plaintiff Pacheco herself.  (Id.)  Notice of this ruling was served on December 28, 2022.  (Id.; Ex. “A.”)  However, as of the date of the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff Pacheco has not served her ordered discovery responses with verifications and without objections nor has her attorney of record paid defense counsel the ordered sanctions of $940.05.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  As Plaintiff Pacheco has failed to respond to discovery, Plaintiff Pacheco has failed to obey the Court Order of December 8, 2022.  Further, Plaintiff Pacheco does not oppose this Motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Pacheco’s action against Defendants is hereby dismissed. 

In connection with this motion, Defendants seek sanctions and attorneys’ fees of $817.65 (2 hours to prepare the motion and 2 hours to prepare and attend the hearing, all at the hourly rate of $189.00, plus filing fee of $61.65.)  (Id., ¶ 9.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff Pacheco failed to obey the Court’s order.  Also, Court does not find that Plaintiff Pacheco acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust as no opposition has been filed, and as such, no explanation has been provided.  

            Accordingly, Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, 2023.290 and 2031.300.)  Plaintiff Pacheco and her attorney of record, Vania Nemanpour, are ORDERED to pay Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record, Michael Y. Yerzinkyan, sanctions in the total amount of $817.65 within 20 days of this ruling.

            Moving Defendants are 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 23^rd day of May, 2023