Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV16078, Date: 2024-09-06 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: 23STCV16078 Hearing Date: September 6, 2024 Dept: 34
The Motions for Terminating
Sanctions are GRANTED in part.
The Answers of Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC,
and Filipe Rodriguez are STRICKEN.
Default
is ENTERED on Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties
LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez.
The Motions for Terminating
Sanctions are DENIED as to all else.
BACKGROUND:
On July
10, 2023, Plaintiff Hector Gonzalez filed his Complaint against Defendant Ivan
Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, Filipe Rodriguez, and
First Choice Interlock, Inc. on causes of action arising from the Parties’
business contracts and interactions.
On
September 13, 2023, by request of the Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered
default on Defendant First Choice Interlock, Inc.
On
December 22, 2023, Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment
Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez filed their respective Answers to the
Complaint.
On April
23, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery motions as to Defendants Ivan
Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez.
On May 10,
2024, Plaintiff filed three substantively-identical motions, each titled
“Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Form
Interrogatories and Request for Production After Being Ordered to Do So, and
for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (“Motion for Terminating Sanctions”).
On June 4,
2024, Plaintiff filed Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron Regarding Non-Receipt
of Opposition.
No
oppositions or other responses have been filed regarding the Motions for
Terminating Sanctions.
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, 795–796.)
A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which
should be employed with caution." (Deyo, supra, 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 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, 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
Plaintiff moves the Court to issue
terminating sanctions by striking each of these three Defendants’ respective
Answers, entering default on all of them, and ordering them to pay monetary
sanctions. (Motions for Terminating Sanctions, pp. 6–7.)
Plaintiff argues that these
sanctions are warranted because: (1) these Defendants have not fulfilled their
discovery obligations; (2) these Defendants have not paid their prior monetary
sanctions; and (3) these Defendants have not complied with the Court’s Minute
Order dated April 23, 2024. (Motions for Terminating Sanctions, p. 6.)
According to Plaintiff’s Counsel, these
Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with court-ordered discovery responses
or paid court-ordered monetary sanctions. (Motions for Terminating Sanctions,
Decl. Shafron, ¶ 6.)
There is no evidence before the
Court that indicates these Defendants have served discovery responses, paid
their monetary sanctions, or otherwise complied with the Court’s Minute Order
dated April 23, 2024. There is also no indication that any sanction would
result in these Defendants serving responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding
discovery requests. Rather, considering that these Defendants have repeatedly
failed to serve timely responses, have repeatedly chosen not to respond to
motions, and have not even responded to this motion for terminating sanctions,
it appears that these Defendants have ceased participating in this case.
The Court
GRANTS in part the motions and ISSUES terminating sanctions. However, monetary
sanctions are not required here, and given the boilerplate nature of these
motions, it does not seem appropriate to also issue monetary sanctions. The
Court DENIES the request for monetary sanctions.
III.
Conclusion
The Motions for Terminating
Sanctions are GRANTED in part.
The Answers of Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC,
and Filipe Rodriguez are STRICKEN.
Plaintiff
is ordered to file a Request for Entry of Default as to Defendants Ivan Alberto
Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez within 10
days.
The Motions for Terminating
Sanctions are DENIED as to all else.