Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV21848, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21848    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC   

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Compliance with Court Order, and Request for Sanctions

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) imposing terminating sanctions against defendant Laura E. Vaca (“Defendant”) or, in the alternative, (2) compelling Defendant to comply with the court’s October 29, 2024 order.  Plaintiff also requests an order awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,310.

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.)¿ “Misuses 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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)¿ “When exercising its discretion to determine which form of sanction is most appropriate for a discovery violation, a trial court should consider various factors, including ‘the importance of the materials that were not produced—from the perspective of the offended party’s ability to litigate the case—and what prejudice, if any, the offended party suffered….’”¿ (Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158.)¿¿ 

First, the court finds that Plaintiff has shown that Defendant violated the court’s October 29, 2024 order compelling her to provide further written responses, and to produce responsive documents, to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

On October 29, 2024, the court issued an order that, inter alia, granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents.  (Oct. 29, 2024 Order, p. 5:13-14.)  The court ordered Defendant (1) to serve on Plaintiff further written responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-4 and 6-7 and to produce documents responsive to those requests within 20 days of the date of service of the court’s order, and (2) to pay to Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,060 within 30 days of the date of service of the court’s order.  (Oct. 29, 2024 Order, pp. 5:15-22, 6:5-7.)  Plaintiff served a copy of the court’s October 29, 2024 order on counsel for Defendant by electronic service on November 7, 2024.  (Medvei Decl., Ex. 1, p. 9 [proof of service on November 7, 2024]; Jan. 16, 2025 Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order, p. 9 [proof of service on November 7, 2024].)  Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that Defendant did not serve responses and produce documents (1) within the time ordered by the court (i.e., 20 days after the date of electronic service of the notice of ruling on November 7, 2024), or (2) as of the date that Plaintiff filed this motion.  (Medvei Decl., ¶ 4.)

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has shown that Defendant violated the court’s order compelling her to serve responses and produce documents.  Defendant did not file opposition papers or other evidence with the court (1) disputing Plaintiff’s assertion that she did not serve the discovery responses ordered, or (2) showing that she has since complied with the court’s October 29, 2024 order.

Second, the court finds that Defendant’s failure to respond to the subject discovery is prejudicial to Plaintiff.  (Victor Valley Union High School District, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 1158 [court should consider the importance of materials not produced and what prejudice has been suffered, if any].) 

The subject discovery requested the production of documents regarding (1) any contracts and receipts between Defendant and her customers regarding immigration consultant services, (2) Defendant’s immigrant consultant bond, (3) Defendant’s advertisements, and (4) other documents regarding Defendant’s customers and the documents provided thereto.  (Pl. Mot. to Compel Further filed Dec. 28, 2023, Medvei Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 2-3.)  These documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is operating an unlawful immigrant legal services enterprise (FAC ¶¶ 9, 14).  For example, contracts between Defendant and her customers, documents regarding her customers, and the documents that Defendant provided to her customers may prove or disprove Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant “unlawfully charg[es] [her] vulnerable ‘clientele’ exorbitant prices for the unlawful preparation of immigration applications and petitions, as well as other unauthorized legal services” (FAC ¶ 14), including the unauthorized practice of law (Ibid). 

Further, the documents regarding Defendant’s advertisements and her immigration consultant bond may prove or disprove Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant (and the other named defendants in this action) “advertise services related to an ‘immigration matter’ such that Defendants must have an immigration consultant bond during the time period any services are provided, offered, and/or advertised” but Defendant does “not have an immigration consultant bond” (FAC ¶ 15).  The documents regarding Defendant’s advertisements are also relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that the defendants’ advertisements do not “include a clear and conspicuous statement to the effect that Defendants are not attorneys” (FAC ¶ 17).

Thus, the court finds that Defendant’s failure to provide the ordered written responses and responsive documents to the subject discovery is highly prejudicial to Plaintiff since the document demands go to the heart of Plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of the Immigration Consultant Act.

Third, the court notes that the imposition of the less severe sanction of monetary sanctions has not produced Defendant’s compliance with the discovery rules or the court’s order.  (Victor Valley Union High School District, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 1158; Oct. 29, 2024 Order, p. 6:5-7 [imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant].)

Based on the evidence presented, and in light of the fact that Defendant did not file opposition papers in connection with the pending motion for terminating sanctions, the court finds that (1) Defendant has engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process by        (i) willfully violating the court’s October 29, 2024 order to serve written responses and produce responsive documents to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, and (ii) failing to submit to that authorized method of discovery, (2) Defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s order has prejudiced Plaintiff, and (3) the evidence shows that the less severe sanction of monetary sanctions has not produced compliance with the discovery rules.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (d), (g).)  Further, as set forth above, Defendant did not file opposition papers disputing her failure to comply with the court’s order or otherwise explaining her failure to serve responses as ordered.

The court therefore finds that it is appropriate, and exercises its discretion, to impose terminating sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (d)(1), (d)(4).)  The court, however, notes that Defendant has not yet filed an answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.[1]  Defendant responded to the First Amended Complaint by filing, on May 8, 2024, (1) a motion to dismiss this action, and (2) a motion to strike the First Amended Complaint.  Although the court issued an order denying those motions on June 6, 2024, Defendant did not thereafter file an answer to the First Amended Complaint.  (June 6, 2024 Order, p. 5:20-23.)  Thus, the court (1) will issue terminating sanctions and order that Defendant shall be prohibited from filing an answer or other responsive pleading directed to the First Amended Complaint and (2) will direct Plaintiff to file a request for entry of default against Defendant.

The court also grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)  The court finds that $810 ((1.5 hours x $500 hourly rate) + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Medvei Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

The court denies as moot Plaintiff’s alternative requests for relief.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions or, in the alternative, motion to compel compliance with court order and request for sanctions as follows.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(4), the court orders that defendant Laura E. Vaca is prohibited from filing an answer or other responsive pleading to plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s First Amended Complaint. 

            The court orders plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to file a request for entry of default of defendant Laura E. Vaca (made on Judicial Council form CIV-100) within 10 days of the date of this order.

            The court sets for hearing an Order to Show Cause re entry of default (as to defendant Laura E. Vaca) on April 15, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 26, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court