Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 22STCV02425 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV02425, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02425 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant L.A. Family Housing LLC (erroneously sued as Los Angeles Family Housing-Pacoima Place)’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is GRANTED.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff Valerie White’s complaint against Defendant L.A. Family Housing LLC (erroneously sued as Los Angeles Family Housing-Pacoima Place) with prejudice.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

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 moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's January 26, 2023 order compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery and pay monetary sanctions.

On January 26, 2023, 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 $690 within 30 days of the order. (1/26/2023 Minute Order.) The Clerk gave notice of the ruling. (1/26/2023 Certificate of Mailing.) Despite the Court’s January 26, 2023 Order, Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery or pay sanctions. (Young Decl., ¶ 14.)

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.)

Nevertheless, 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, and failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions. Thus, it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Plaintiff would not produce compliance, and that Plaintiff is disinterested in prosecuting this case.

Defendant’s additional request for sanctions is DENIED as imposing monetary sanctions would be unjust in addition to imposing terminating sanctions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant L.A. Family Housing LLC (erroneously sued as Los Angeles Family Housing-Pacoima Place)’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is GRANTED.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff Valerie White’s complaint against Defendant L.A. Family Housing LLC (erroneously sued as Los Angeles Family Housing-Pacoima Place) with prejudice.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.