Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 20TRCV00918, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 20TRCV00918, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00918 Hearing Date: September 15, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: September 15, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 20TRCV00918

CASE NAME: Juan Ramirez, et al. v. Get Lucky Capital, LLC et al. .

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, WESTSTAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Juan Ramirez, and Alondra Ramirez (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: None set

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Terminating and Further Monetary Sanctions or, in the alternative, for Evidence and Further Monetary Sanctions

(2) Trial Setting Conference

(3) Settlement Conference Scheduling

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion for Terminating and Evidence Sanctions is denied, but Grant $1,00 in further monetary sanctions in addition to the $1,420 past due amount.

(2) The Court will discuss its trial calendar with counsel and attempt to find a suitable date in the fourth quarter of 2024

(3) The Court will discuss re-setting an MSC with counsel

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On December 10, 2020, Plaintiffs Juan Ramirez and Alondra Ramirez brought this action against Defendants Get Lucky Capital, LLC (“GLC”); Weststar Property Management, Inc. (“Weststar”) and DOES 1 through 20. On February 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Forcible Entry; and (2) Forcible Detainer.

This case is based on the alleged facts: On or about March 18, 2019, Plaintiffs rented the real property commonly known as 13106 South Vermont Avenue, Unit #7, Gardena, CA 90247 (the “Property”) from defendant, GLC, pursuant to a written California Residential Lease Agreement (the “lease”.) (FAC, ¶ 9, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiffs allege that GLC owned the Property at all times material to this complaint. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Westar Management was the property manager for the Property at all times material to this complaint. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs allege that on December 8, 2020, defendants forcibly entered the Property without plaintiffs’ consent and not pursuant to legal process. (FAC, ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs contend that starting December 8, 2020, defendants, who had forcibly entered the Property without plaintiffs’ consent and not pursuant to legal process, turned plaintiffs out of possession of the Property. (FAC, ¶ 23.)

Plaintiffs allege that “by such forcible detainer, plaintiffs have been deprived of possession of the Property and its contents.” (FAC, ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants further stole, destroyed and disposed of plaintiffs’ personal property that was in the Property at the time that defendants forcibly entered the Property.” (FAC, ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs further contend that “Defendants have remained and continue to remain, without plaintiffs’ consent, in possession of the Property and its contents up to and including the date of this complaint and are threatening to remain permanently in possession of the Property and its contents.” (FAC, ¶ 25.)

On August 29, 2022, this Court entered an order granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Requests ordering Plaintiffs to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (hereinafter collectively, "Discovery Requests"), within ten (10) days of the August 29th Order, on or before September 8, 2022, and sanctioning Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $1070.00 for failing to do so previously. Defendants further note that as of the day of the filing of this current motion, Plaintiffs have not served any substantive response to the Discovery Requests and neither Plaintiffs’ nor Plaintiffs’ counsel have paid the monetary sanctions granted on August 29, 2022.

Further, Defendant also notes that on February 6, 2023, this Court entered an order granting Defendant additional monetary sanctions ordering Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $350 within thirty (30) days of said order, on or before March 8, 2023. Again, Defendant notes that as of the date it filed this motion, neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs’ counsel paid $350.

B. Procedural

On August 9, 2023, Defendant, Weststar filed this Motion.

This Case was originally scheduled for August 31, 2023, but both parties stipulated to continue the hearing.

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed their opposition brief. On September 8, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief.

¿II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (h) (depositions); § 2030.290, subd. (c) (interrogatories); § 2031.300, subd. (c) (demands for production of documents); § 2033.290, subd. (e) (requests for admission). Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . .” Section 2023.010 provides 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. . .”

“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.” (Id., 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].)

Upon finding a party has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process, the trial court has discretion to order an issue sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 (b).) Such sanctions may designate facts that shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by a misuse of the discovery process. (Ibid.) Discovery sanctions are matters squarely within the trial court’s discretion and will not be returned except instances of extreme abuse. A terminating sanction is an extreme remedy; it is only justified where a violation is preceded by a history of abuse and less severe sanctions would fail to produce compliance. (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279—280 (Mileikowsky).) A movant seeking discovery sanctions based on the alleged spoliation of evidence proceeds by showing a prima facie case that the respondent destroyed evidence which had a substantial probability to establish an element of the movant’s defense. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226 (Williams).) The burden then shifts to the respondent to show otherwise. (Ibid.)

B. Discussion

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ opposition was untimely. Although Plaintiffs contend that pursuant to California Rules of Court, their opposition to the motion may be made orally at the time of the hearing (CRC, Rule 3.1347(b)), if a party seeks to have a written opposition considered in advance of the hearing, the written opposition must be served and filed on or before the day before the hearing. (CRC, Riled 3.1347(c).) Here, the date of the hearing was scheduled for August 31, 2023, and the opposition was filed the same day, not the day before the hearing. As such, the opposition is untimely. However, the Court will nonetheless analyze the opposition below, given the disclosure by Plaintiff’s counsel of his recent medical diagnosis and its effect on his responsiveness to all court-related matters. It was on account of that diagnosis that the Court continued the hearing on these motions and continued the trial-setting conference.

Here, Defendant notes that less severe sanctions and prior court orders have failed to induce Plaintiffs and their counsel to comply with the discovery rules. Defendant propounded its discovery over two years ago, and on numerous occasions, Plaintiffs have failed to meet deadlines, requiring Defendant’s counsel to send a multitude of follow-up emails. This is a clear misuse of the discovery process. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to comply has been willful. Defendant contends that it seeks to obtain documents and information that support Plaintiffs’ claims to properly defend against the claims, and that unless Plaintiffs respond and identify which documents they are producing in response to which requests, Defendant is left to guess at the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims asserted against it in this litigation. Based on this, Defendant contends it has satisfied the requirements in Miranda, and that it is appropriate for this Court to impose the terminating sanctions by dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that they have provided complete responses to all outstanding discovery, and thus the motion should be denied. (Castorina Decl., ¶¶ 2-4, Exhibits 1-6.) Plaintiffs note they have now provided complete responses without any objections to the outstanding discovery. (Castorina Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

In Defendant’s reply brief, they contend that Plaintiffs and/or their counsel have still failed to comply with the Court’s orders. Defendant notes that the August 29, 2022 Court order commanded Plaintiffs or their counsel to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $1070 on or before September 8, 2022, and the February 6, 2023 order required Plaintiffs or their counsel to pay an additional $350 in monetary sanctions within thirty (30) days of said order. However, Plaintiff contends that neither has been paid. The Court is not seeing anything in the opposition or declaration which speaks to these outstanding failures to pay, all of which precede the medical diagnosis affecting counsel by many, many months. The Court seeks oral argument from Plaintiffs counsel on why these monetary sanctions have yet to be paid.

In Defendant’s original moving papers, Defendant has alternatively requests this Court impose evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiffs. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(c), the Court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence. The Court notes that although Plaintiffs have since served their responses, without objections, to Defendant, the prior sanctions listed above still have yet to be paid. The Court is inclined to impose further monetary sanctions in the amount sufficient to provide reasonable compensation to defendants who paid for their lawyers to attend hearings and to bring written motions to induce compliance with previous court orders.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Impose Terminating Sanctions of the Dismissal and Evidentiary Sanctions of Plaintiffs’ complaint are DENIED. However, Defendant’s Request for an order imposing further monetary sanctions in addition to the sanctions already owed is GRANTED in the amount of $1,000 in addition to the $1,420 past due amount.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.