Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 19STCV17360, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 19STCV17360    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: T

19STCV17360 VEHANUSH GRADJYAN vs BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONA

Tentative ruling: Motion for sanctions:  Motion is granted.  Terminating sanctions are imposed.  The complaint filed on 5/17/2019 is dismissed with prejudice due to discovery abuse without any justification and violation of the 2/24/2023 court order per CCP 2023.030, 2031.300.  Trial of this case is set in 90 days.  Plaintiffs filed this action 3 years ago.  Written discovery was served on the plaintiffs on 9/14/2021.  After multiple extensions of time for 8 months, an IDC was held.  Despite that, no responses were served. 

On 2/24/2023, the court issued an order to answer the discovery without objections.  Since that time, no discovery responses have been served.  This case presents with undeniable sanctionable conduct warranting terminating sanctions.  There has been no excuse for the failure to ever provide answers from 9/14/2021 to 4/18/2023.  No substantive opposition was filed to the motion.  His claim that he did not see the motion to compel rings untrue as the motion was served by email to him personally at his address listed with the State Bar and 4 other email addresses in his office.  This is just another example of delay without any reasonable explanation. A judgment of dismissal with prejudice shall be entered.  Defendants CHM Hotels and Carriage Inn Investors, LP are the prevailing parties. 

The court finds that the denial of the request for continuance is justified despite the religious holidays.  Mr. Janfaza had time to prepare and file a declaration by 4/5/2023.  He did not explain why he could not oppose the motion on that day.  The court can think of no reasonable explanation, as he did not explain anything in his declaration or make any offer of proof. Even in the time he prepared his declaration, he could have listed the reasons why the motion should not be granted.  He did not make any effort. There is no reasonable explanation for the failure to answer the discovery, This is also assuming that no one in his office saw the papers until 4/5/2023 which does not appear to be credible.  He does not explain what happened to 5 emails in his office, including one directly to him, attaching the motion and why they were ignored.  He does not explain why nothing was done to cover the desk of the legal assistant who was on leave from 3/20/2023 until 4/5/2023, a span of 2 ½ weeks.  There is no excusable neglect shown and Mr. Janfaza had an opportunity to put something in his declaration to show any reasonable reasons.  He does not state what time his assistant returned to the office on 4/5/2023 and when he became aware of the motion.  He did not hire someone (in his absence) to come in ex parte to ask for any relief between 4/6/2023 through 4/17/2023, even though he knew on 4/5/2023 that terminating sanctions were being requested. 

In all, there is a pattern of broken promises, and willful refusal to engage in discovery, along with violation of a court order, which justifies this sanction.  Monetary sanctions are denied.