Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV19231, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19231    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 29

Ricardo Gonzales Gutierrez v. Dagoberto Guerrero, et al. 

Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Court Order filed by Defendant Comprehensive Distribution Services, Inc. 

 

 

TENTATIVE

 

Defendant Comprehensive Distribution Services, Inc.’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is GRANTED. The Court dismisses Plaintiff Ricardo Gonzales Gutierrez’s complaint against Defendant Comprehensive Distribution Services, Inc. with prejudice.

 

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 Comprehensive Distribution Services moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's June 8, 2022 order compelling him to respond to discovery and pay monetary sanctions.

On June 8, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents within 30 days, and to pay sanctions in the amount of $ $473.30  within 30 days of the order. (6/8/2022 Minute Order.) Defendant served notice of the Court’s June 8, 2022 Order on June 17, 2022. (Hall Decl., Exh. A.) Despite the Court’s June 8, 2022 Order, Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery or pay sanctions. (Id., ¶ 4.)

The Court finds terminating sanctions action against Plaintiff is appropriate. Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery, failed to comply with the Court's order to respond to discovery, failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions, and failed to pay monetary sanctions imposed against Plaintiff. Thus, it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Plaintiff would not produce compliance, and that Plaintiff is disinterested in prosecuting this case.

 

Monetary sanctions are denied as the complaint is being dismissed.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is GRANTED. The Court dismisses Plaintiff Ricardo Gonzales Gutierrez’s complaint against Defendant Comprehensive Distribution Services, Inc. with prejudice.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.