Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV34706, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34706    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 39

David Rentz v. Michael Deblois

Case No. 21STCV34706

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

NOTICE

            The Court posts this tentative order on Wednesday, October 5, 2022, at approximately 9:30 a.m., in advance of the hearing on October 11, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court provides notice that if Defendant does not appear, either remotely or in-person, he shall waive the right to be heard, and this hearing shall be taken off-calendar and this order shall be issued.  The Court authorizes the parties to appear remotely through LACourtConnect.  Any party who is not able to use LACourtConnect may call the Court’s judicial assistant, Roberto Mendoza, at (213) 633-0159 to determine whether it is possible to appear via telephone.     

ORDER

            Plaintiff David Rentz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Michael Deblois (“Defendant”), asserting a single cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In brief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant send “scores of malicious, obscene, threatening and racist e-mails” to Plaintiff and “other persons associated with his condominium complex.”  (Complaint, ¶ 1.)  Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he first barrage of Threatening e-mails was sent in the latter half of 2019” and “Defendant resumed sending [Plaintiff] Threatening E-mails in July 2021, as part of renewed effort to harass and frighten Plaintiff and extort Plaintiff to purchase Defendant’s condominium for a price over ten time fair market value.”  (Ibid.) 

            Plaintiff moved to compel discovery responses to the following discovery requests: (1) Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two (“FROGs”), (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”), (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”), and (4) Requests for Admissions, Sets One and Two (“RFAs”).  The first set of FROGs was served on Defendant via mail on October 14, 2021.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated May 24, 2022.)  The remaining discovery requests were served on Defendant via mail on November 10, 2021.  (Ibid.)  Therefore, the discovery requests were due on or before December 20, 2021.  (Ibid.)  Defendant did not comply with his discovery obligations, so the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel an ordered Defendant to provide verified responses, without objections, on or before July 1, 2022.  (Ibid.) 

            The Court held a compliance hearing on August 15, 2022.  Plaintiff’s counsel appeared and represented that she had not received discovery responses, as required by the Court’s prior order.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated August 15, 2022.)  Defendant did not appear at the hearing.  (Ibid.)  Now, Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions, as well as monetary sanctions in the amount of $8,895.  The Court grants the motion and strikes Defendant’s answer.  The Court has considered the option of imposing lesser sanctions but finds that none would be effective.  The Court previously imposed monetary sanctions, to no avail, and the record reflects that Defendant has refused to cooperate with Plaintiff’s counsel or participate in this litigation.  The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct has been willful, and that no lesser sanction will facilitate his compliance with his discovery obligations.  The Court declines to impose additional monetary sanctions in light of its decision to strike Defendant’s answer, which would permit Plaintiff to seek entry of default and default judgment.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions and strikes Defendant’s answer.  The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial dates. 

            2.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit a request for entry of default forthwith.

            3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit a default judgment packet with sufficient evidence (e.g., Plaintiff’s declaration, the relevant exhibits, etc.) to support the requested amounts for the default judgment.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit the default judgment packet on or before October 28, 2022.  The Court provides notice that it does not intend to hold a default judgment prove-up hearing.

            4.         The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Default Judgment on November 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.  However, if the default judgment packet is sufficient, the Court will issue the default judgment and take the hearing off-calendar.

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