Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV44942, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV44942    Hearing Date: November 2, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club   

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Onnik Kazanchian

Motion for Sanctions

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order granting monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,927 in its favor and against plaintiff Onnik Kazanchian (“Plaintiff”) based on Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the inspection of his vehicle.

First, as a threshold matter, the court notes that judgment was entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s Complaint on October 20, 2023.  The “‘general rule’ [is] that ‘once a party has been dismissed from an action[,] he is no longer a party and the court lacks jurisdiction to conduct any further proceedings as to him.’”  (Day v. Collingwood (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1124.)  But a dismissed party “‘may still have collateral statutory rights which the court must determine and enforce.’  [Citation.]  Among these collateral rights are ‘the right to statutory costs and attorneys fees[,]’” and to recover sanctions.  (Ibid.)  

Second, the court finds that Defendant has not moved pursuant to a statutory provision entitling it to an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and therefore denies Defendant’s motion.

In support of its motion, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010, 2023.010, and 2023.030.  However, none of these statutory provisions provides for the recovery of monetary sanctions.  Section 2031.010 provides that a party may obtain discovery as set forth therein but does not state that any noncompliance with that statute entitles a party to an award of monetary sanctions.  Thus, the court finds that section 2031.010 does not support Defendant’s request for an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

Similarly, section 2023.010 sets forth misuses of the discovery process, but does not include a provision allowing for the recovery of sanctions.  Further, while section 2023.030 authorizes the imposition of monetary sanctions, it does so “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision” of the Civil Discovery Act.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030; New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1422.)  Thus, “sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.”  (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504, review granted January 25, 2023, S277211; New Albertsons, Inc., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1422 [“the statutes governing the particular discovery methods limit the permissible sanctions to those sanctions provided under the applicable governing statutes.”].)  The court therefore finds that Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, unaccompanied by any other statutory provision allowing for the recovery of sanctions, do not support Defendant’s request for an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s motion for sanctions.

            The court orders plaintiff Onnik Kazanchian to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 2, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court