Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 24STCV09962, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 24STCV09962, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Savira Gems and Jewels, Inc., brings this action against Defendants Silver Dawn, LLC, and Zen Global Imports, Inc., for common counts in the amount of $85,742.60.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $585.00. The sanction is awarded against Defendant and its counsel jointly and severally to be paid within 30 days.

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.)

Plaintiff moves to enter a default against Defendant Silver Dawn LLC and to recover its attorney’s fees in connection with this motion. Where a party engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a terminating sanction “rendering a judgment by default against that party.” (CCP § 2023.030(d)(4).)

On November 15, 2024, this court granted Plaintiff’s three motions to compel further responses to discovery. (See November 15, 2024 Minute Order.) This court ordered Defendant to serve Code-compliant responses within 30 days of that Ruling and awarded sanctions of $500 for each motion. (Id.)

On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating and monetary sanctions, indicating that Defendant (or attorney) had failed to provide responses or pay the monetary sanction. (Krantz Decl. ¶ 4.) The latter is NOT a proper basis for additional sanctions, especially terminating. If the sanctions are paid, as ordered, collect it like a judgment under the applicable laws.

Defendant did not filed an “opposition” to the motion. However, on February 25, 2025, counsel for Defendants, Khachik Akhkashian, filed a declaration attesting that he has “delivered to Opposing Counsel what [he] believe[s] are Code Compliant Further Responses on behalf of Defendant, Silver Dawn, LLC.” (Akhkashian Decl. ¶ 6.) In addition, Attorney Akhkashian states he has “delivered payment in the amount of $4,030.00 for the award in attorney fees.” (Id. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff has not filed a response to refute the claims made in Attorney Akhkashian’s declaration. Thus, absent any showing to the contrary at the hearing, the court considers Defendant and counsel to have now complied with this court’s November 15, 2025 Order, albeit delayed. Therefore, no terminating sanctions are warranted at this time.

However, as to a monetary sanction, “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).)

Here, it appears undisputed that Defendant failed to comply (within 30 days) of the Court’s November 15th Order, and therefore was in violation of that order and its discovery obligations. Based on that failure, Plaintiff was justified in filing the instant motion and is entitled to a minimum of monetary sanctions in connection thereto.

However, this is a simple motion. Court made order. Defendant failed to comply. All undisputed. Utilizing a lodestar approach, Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded reasonable attorney’s fees of ($350/hour x 1.5 hours) plus a $60 filing fee as a sanction, for a total award of $585.00. The sanction is awarded against Defendant and its counsel jointly and severally to be paid within 30 days.