Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV31483, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV31483    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff JG Concepts Inc.     

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Strike Answer and for Monetary Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff JG Concepts Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) striking the answer filed by defendant Jeremy Mathiason (“Defendant”) and entering his default, and          (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $1,635.  Plaintiff moves for this relief on the ground that Defendant did not comply with the court’s November 22, 2023 order.

If a party engages in a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)  Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides, in relevant part, that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”¿ Moreover, if a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to interrogatories pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).  In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction” pursuant to that chapter.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering 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.’”¿ (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)¿ “Generally, ‘[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.’”¿ (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)¿¿¿ 

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390, citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery]; Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 469, 478, n. 4 [terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].)¿¿¿ 

On November 22, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to serve responses to its Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories and ordered Defendant to serve, without objections and within 20 days of the date of service of the court’s order, full and complete verified answers (1) to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, and (2) to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories.  (Nov. 22, 2023 Order, p. 2:13-19.)  The court also imposed monetary sanctions against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $935, to be paid within 90 days of the date of service of the court’s order.  (Id., p. 2:20-21.)  Plaintiff served Defendant with notice of the court’s November 22, 2023 order by email on November 27, 2023, and again on December 20, 2023, by mail and email.  (Nov. 27, 2023 Notice of Ruling, p. 6 [Nov. 27, 2023 Proof of Service]; Feb. 20, 2024 Proof of Service of Minute Order, p. 5 [Dec. 20, 2023 Proof of Service].)  Plaintiff has presented evidence showing that Defendant did not timely serve responses to its discovery and had not served responses as of the date that Plaintiff filed this motion on February 20, 2024.  (Meaglia Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)  Defendant has not filed an opposition to this motion establishing that responses have since been served.

The court finds that Defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s order to serve responses to Plaintiff’s discovery is prejudicial to Plaintiff because the interrogatories request information that is central to its claims in this action.  For example, Form Interrogatories numbers 12.1, 15.0, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6 request information regarding any known witnesses, the facts on which Defendant bases his (i) denial of material allegations and (ii) special or affirmative defenses, and facts concerning the contract alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, any contended breaches thereof, excusals of performance thereunder, and the enforceability of any such agreements.  (Mot. to Compel Responses filed by Plaintiff on April 5, 2023, Meaglia Decl., Ex. 2, Form Interrogatories, pp. 5, 6, 8.)  Similarly, Special Interrogatory number 1 asks if Defendant contends that he does not owe money to Plaintiff, and numbers 2-4 request information supporting that contention.  (Mot. to Compel Responses filed by Plaintiff on April 5, 2023, Meaglia Decl., Ex. 1, Special Interrogatories, p. 2:17-25.)  The other interrogatories request information regarding any contention that Defendant owes money to Plaintiff and any work performed by Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant.  (Mot. to Compel Responses filed by Plaintiff on April 5, 2023, Meaglia Decl., Ex. 1, Special Interrogatories, pp. 2:26-3:18.)

Thus, the court finds that the information requested in the Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, which are based on the allegations that (1) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into various oral agreements, pursuant to which Plaintiff would perform work for Defendant at different construction projects, and (2) although Plaintiff performed work for Defendant as agreed, Defendant has not paid Plaintiff.  (Compl., ¶¶ 8-12 14-16, 18-19, 21.)  The court therefore finds that Defendant’s failure to respond to this discovery is prejudicial to Plaintiff.

Based on the evidence presented, and in light of the fact that Defendant did not file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, the court finds that Defendant has engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process by willfully disobeying the court’s November 22, 2023 order and by failing to submit to authorized methods of discovery (i.e., Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories).  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (g), (d), 2030.290, subd. (c).)  The court has also determined that Defendant’s failure to respond to this discovery is prejudicial to Plaintiff for the reasons set forth above.  The evidence further shows that the less severe sanctions of monetary sanctions issued by the court in its November 22, 2023 order has not produced compliance by Defendant with the discovery rules or the court’s order.  Finally, Defendant has not filed opposition papers or other evidence with the court disputing his failure to comply with the court’s order or setting forth other circumstances for the court to consider in connection with this motion.  The court therefore finds that it is appropriate, and exercises its discretion, to impose terminating sanctions against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d).

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (c).)  The court finds that $1,110 ((3 hours x $350 hourly rate) + $60 motion filing fee) is a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions to impose against Defendant.  (Meaglia Decl., ¶ 15.)

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff JG Concepts Inc.’s motion to strike answer and for monetary sanctions.

            The court orders that the answer filed by defendant Jeremy Mathiason on February 14, 2023 is stricken.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

            The court orders plaintiff JG Concepts Inc. to file a Request for Entry of Default (Judicial Council form CIV-100) as to defendant Jeremy Mathiason no later than April 5, 2024. 

            The court sets an Order to Show Cause re entry of default and default judgment for hearing on June 25, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders plaintiff JG Concepts Inc. to file default judgment documents required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800 (including a proposed judgment on Judicial Council form JUD-100) no later than May 31, 2024.    

            The court vacates the Final Status Conference set for November 8, 2024, and the trial set for November 20, 2024.

            The court orders plaintiff JG Concepts Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 26, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court