Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 19STCV33539, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV33539    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 39

Arnulfo Alvarez v. Crowne Plaza Hotel, et al.

Case No. 19STCV33539

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Motion to Deem Admitted

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal

            Plaintiff Arnulfo Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment case on September 19, 2019 against Defendant Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC (“Defendant”), among others.  This case has been replete with discovery violations by Plaintiff.  On February 8, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RPDs”), Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), and Special Interrogatories (“SROG”).  The Court granted the motion on May 12, 2022, and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses to this discovery. The Court also ordered Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $882.50. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated May 12, 2022.)

Then, on August 18, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of May 12, 2022.  The Court denied the motion for terminating sanctions but granted Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated September 14, 2022.)  The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,880.  (Ibid.)  The Court admonished Plaintiff’s counsel concerning his dilatory conduct but noted that “the Court has no discretion and cannot order a terminating sanction in this case.”  (Ibid.) 

On August 30, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.  The Court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff’s deposition to occur on Friday, October 18, 2022. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated September 27, 2022.)  The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,940.  (Ibid.)

Then, Defendant moved to compel further responses to the FROGs.  The motion was filed on August 16, 2022.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, and Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition on October 31, 2022.  The Court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses within 25 days.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated November 9, 2022.)  The Court also ordered Plaintiff and his counsel, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,470.  (Ibid.) 

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not dismiss defendants for which Plaintiff has not sought entry of default.  (Ibid.)  Specifically, Plaintiff served an entity called “Intercontinental Hotels Group, Inc. dba Crowne Plaza Hotel” on September 17, 2021.  This appears to be an erroneously served defendant, but this defendant was never dismissed.  Nor has Plaintiff sought entry of default. 

Now, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions based upon Plaintiff again having failed to comply with the Court’s discovery orders.  Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to provide further responses to the Form Interrogatories in violation of this Court’s order of November 9, 2022.  (See Declaration of Sawyer C. Stephens, ¶¶ 23-25.)  Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to this motion, and the record reflects no good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations.  This case involves repeated discovery violations.  The Court has considered the option of imposing lesser sanctions, but none would be effective.  The Court has repeatedly imposed monetary sanctions, which have not been paid.  (See Declaration of Sawyer C. Stephens, ¶ 22.)  The Court has repeatedly admonished Plaintiff’s counsel, to no avail.  The Court considered whether to impose evidentiary but even if so, Defendant still would be prejudiced without the requested discovery.  The Court considered whether to impose an issue sanction, but that effectively would be the same as a terminating sanction in the context of this case.  It would not promote judicial economy—or respect the time of our jurors—to proceed with a trial that would be a fait accompli. 

The Court finds that no lesser sanction would facilitate Plaintiff’s compliance with this discovery obligations.  The Court also notes that there are additional discovery violations in that Defendant served the second set of discovery on September 23, 2022.  (See id., ¶ 19.)  Plaintiff served unverified responses to the Requests for Admission, Set Two (“RFAs”) and the Special Interrogatories, Set Two (“SROGs”), and served no responses to the Form Interrogatories—Employment.  (See id., ¶ 20.)  This supports the Court’s view that Plaintiff will not comply with his discovery obligations in this case.

This Court has 638 other cases.  The Court having to spend frequent time on Plaintiff’s discovery violations and the related motions deprives other litigants of the Court’s time, delaying other cases and impacting access to justice.  The Court has given Plaintiff’s counsel numerous opportunities to comply with his discovery obligations, to no avail.  Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted.  Defendant Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC is dismissed with prejudice.

2.         Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Defendant International Hotels Group Inc., dba Crowne Plaza Hotel is dismissed with prejudice.

3.         The Court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions, as further monetary sanctions would not be effective.

4.         The Court denies Defendant’s motion to deem admitted as moot.

5.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.