Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00105, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00105    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 April 12, 2023¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   22TRCV00105

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Merchants Financial Guardian, Inc. v. Michael Roquemore, an individual dba Dr. Michael Wayne Roquemore, et al.

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, Merchants Financial Guardian, Inc.  

RESPONDING PARTY:       Michael Roquemore

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       August 28, 2023  

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion for Terminating Sanctions 

¿ Tentative Rulings:                 (1)  Motion for Terminating Sanction is GRANTED.  The Court will grant a default judgment for plaintiff and schedule a prove-up hearing for the monetary award sought.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

On February 3, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission. The Court ordered Defendant Roquemore to provide verified responses, without objections, to all Forms of Discovery by March 1, 2023, The Court further ordered that monetary sanctions in the amount of $800 be imposed against Roquemore and his counsel Daniel J. Trutanich, payable within 30 days from the date of the Notice of Ruling dated February 3, 2023. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Roquemore violated the Court’s order by failing to provide responses to discovery as ordered, and failing to pay the monetary sanctions. As such, Plaintiff now requests terminating sanctions, or in the alternative issue sanctions ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with Plaintiff’s claims.

B. Procedural¿¿ 

¿ 

On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff, Merchants Financial Guardian, Inc. filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions or in the Alternative, Issue Sanctions.  No opposition has been filed or received.

III. 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].)  

B. Discussion 

            On February 3, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission. The Court ordered Defendant Roquemore to provide verified responses, without objections, to all Forms of Discovery by March 1, 2023.  The Court further ordered that monetary sanctions in the amount of $800 be imposed against Roquemore and his counsel Daniel J. Trutanich, payable within 30 days from the date of the Notice of Ruling dated February 3, 2023. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Roquemore violated the Court’s order by failing to provide responses to discovery as ordered, and failing to pay the monetary sanctions. As such, Plaintiff now requests terminating sanctions, or in the alternative issue sanctions ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with Plaintiff’s claims.  Plaintiff requests terminating sanctions in the form of an order rendering a judgment by default against Defendant, given that plaintiff claims that Defendant, Roquemore has failed to comply with this Court’s order to provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and has refused to pay monetary sanctions imposed by this Court.

            Plaintiff further asserts that if this Court is unwilling to impose terminating sanctions, Plaintiff requests that issue sanctions be imposed pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.030(b), and that Plaintiff’s designated facts regarding Defendant Roquemore’s breach of the lease agreement, and the amount of damages owed to Plaintiff shall be taken as established. Additionally, Plaintiff requested that Defendant Roquemore be prohibited from opposing Plaintiff’s claims, and prohibited from supporting any defenses. Plaintiff argues that issue sanctions are not an abuse of discretion where a party has repeatedly refused to produce records demanded, and lesser sanctions would leave the Plaintiff unprepared for trial, and reward Defendant Roquemore.

            Lastly, Plaintiff has requested additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,460. Plaintiff also notes that the Courts prior imposition of monetary sanctions was in the sum of $800. 

V. CONCLUSION¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.  The Court grants a judgment by default against Defendant and will schedule a prove-up hearing for a monetary award.  The request for additional monetary sanctions is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿