Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 18STCV02459 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 18STCV02459, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)

IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.

ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 18STCV02459 Hearing Date: April 28, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Shake Khachatrian’s motion for terminating sanctions is CONTINUED to May 30, 2023 at 1:30 p.m..

Legal Standard

CCP 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, evidence, and terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...." CCP section 2023.010 provides that "[m]issues 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. Hachman (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); see, e.g., Collisson X 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. McCucchen (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).)

Discussion

Defendant Khachatrian moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's September 15, 2022 order compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery and pay monetary sanctions. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff also failed to comply with this Court’s January 30, 2023 order, compelling responses to requests for admission.

On September 15, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories within 30 days, and to pay sanctions in the amount of $561.65 within 30 days of the order. (9/15/2022 Minute Order.) Despite the Court’s September 15, 2022 Order, Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery or pay sanctions. (Lira Decl., ¶ 7.)

First, Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s order to pay monetary sanctions¿is not relevant to the Court’s determination as to whether terminating sanctions¿should be imposed, and the Court does not consider that factor in making its determination. (See Newland v. Superior Court¿(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615 (finding a court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction).) A monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 680.010, et seq. (Id.¿at p. 615.)

However, the Court observes that Defendant did not serve notice of the Court’s September 15, 2022 ruling on Plaintiff, or did not file proof of service of the notice served on Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court will continue the matter to allow Plaintiff to do so. Once notice of the ruling is served and Plaintiff still does not provide the responses to form interrogatories at issue in the Court’s September 15, 2022 order, the Court is inclined to grant this motion for terminating sanctions.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is CONTINUED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.