Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 21STCV21318, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

While we remain under various emergency orders during the Covid-19 pandemic, all parties and counsel are encouraged to appear remotely on all civil matters.

If the interested parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling, they should call the judicial assistant together prior to the date of the scheduled hearing. 


Case Number: 21STCV21318    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: 49

Chloe Schneider v. KidFocus LLC, et al.

PLAINTIFF CHLOE SCHNEIDER’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (1) STRIKING DEFENDANT LARIAN’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND (2) ENTERING DEFAULT JUDGMENT
 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Chloe Schneider

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Chloe Schneider brings this action against her former employers, Defendants Kidfocus LLC and Cameron Larian. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered harassment and discrimination in the workplace based on her pregnancy and religious beliefs, among other things. Plaintiff asserts 19 causes of action in the First Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff now moves for terminating sanctions striking Defendant Larian’s Answer to the FAC and entering a default judgment. No opposition was filed. [FN 1] 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint is ordered stricken and default is entered.

A Default Judgment is not entered at this time. An OSC re: Entry of Default Judgment is set for _________ Plaintiff is to utilize the standard process for proving and entering a Default Judgment, per CCP §§ 585 et seq.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Sanctions

I. Legal Standard

The Court has the authority to impose sanctions against a party that engages in the misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030.) Misuse of the discovery process includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (CCP §§ 2023.010(g).) A party engaging in this conduct may be subject to sanctions including monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (CCP § 2023.030(a)-(d).)  

The Court must “tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618-1619.)  “[C]ontinuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. ‘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.’”  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.)

In deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

II. Analysis

A. Background and Analysis

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Larian for misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff also moves to enter a default judgment against Defendant. Defendant did not file an opposition to the motion. 

On March 7, 2023, this court granted Defendant Larian’s former counsel’s motion to be relieved. (See 03/07/2023 Ruling.) On May 11, 2023, the court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Defendant Larian did not appear at the hearing. (See 05/11/2024 Minute Order.) On April 2, 2024, this court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFA’s admitted against Defendant Larian and awarded sanctions of $1,060.00 against Defendant. (See 04/02/2024 Minute Order.) Defendant did not appear at that hearing. (Id.) At the time Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions, Defendant had not paid the monetary sanction. (Wagner Decl. ¶ 8.) Finally, Defendant did not appear for his noticed deposition on April 15, 2024, and did not serve any objections. (See Wagner Decl. ¶¶ 9 & 10; Exhs. A & F.) Plaintiff took a notice of nonappearance. (Id., Exh. F.)

Here, despite the imposition of monetary sanctions, Defendant Larian’s discovery abuses continue. Based on Defendant’s failure to respond to discovery in violation of court orders, failure to appear at any recent hearings, and failure to oppose this motion, Defendant has apparently abandoned any defense. If nothing else, this evidences Defendant’s willful indifference to this court’s orders. Considering the totality of the circumstances here—including that lesser monetary sanctions have been ineffective—terminating sanctions are warranted. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint is ordered stricken and default is entered. 

The court may also issue an order “rendering a judgment by default against” Defendant. (CCP § 2023.030(d)(4).) A default judgment is not entered at this time. The court will address any default judgment through a default prove-up hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 20, 2024 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - Plaintiff served the moving papers on Defendant Larian by mail on July 16, 2024. (See Proof of Service.) Defendant has been unrepresented by counsel since March 7, 2023, when this court granted his former counsel’s motion to be relieved. (See 03/07/2023 Ruling.)