Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV28104, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28104    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 39

Steve Javidzad, et al. v. Adler Construction, Inc., et al.

Case No. 22STCV28104

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

            Plaintiffs Steve Javidzad and Laleh Javidzad (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this wrongful eviction case against Eric Adler; Adler Construction, Inc. (“Adler Construction”); and Adler Ventures, Inc. (“Adler Ventures”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiffs allege that they rented a property in Beverly Hills with a monthly rent of $12,500 from Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants wrongfully entered the property on September 2, 2021, and changed the locks, constituting an unlawful eviction.  Defendants filed a cross-complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract, trespass, intentional misrepresentation, and civil extortion.  Defendants allege that Plaintiffs stopped making rental payments in December 2019, and then falsely claimed not to be able to pay the rent due to the pandemic.  

            On October 3, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff Steve Javidzad to provide responsive documents within thirty (30) days, per his agreement to do so after Defendant Adler Ventures filed a motion to compel, and ordered him to pay monetary sanctions.  On November 1, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel initial and further responses.  The Court ordered Plaintiffs to provide code-compliant responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days and ordered Plaintiff Steve Javidzad to pay monetary sanctions. 

            Now, Defendants move for terminating sanctions.  As of the date of the motion, Plaintiffs have not produced any responsive documents or served code-compliant responses.  (Declaration of Joshua Stein, ¶¶ 5, 12, 16.)  Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, and the record reflects no good cause for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations.  The Court has considered whether lesser sanctions would facilitate Plaintiffs’ compliance with their discovery obligations.  However, the Court previously imposed monetary sanctions on two occasions, to no avail, and evidentiary and issue sanctions would not remedy the prejudice caused by Defendants failure to obtain necessary discovery. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court grants Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions.

            2.         The Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.

            3.         The Court strikes Plaintiffs’ answer to the Defendants’ cross-complaint.

            4.         Defendants shall seek entry of default within ten (10) days and shall submit a default judgment packet within twenty (20) days.

            5.         The Court advances and vacates all dates.  The Court issues an Order to Show Cause why monetary sanctions shall not be imposed against Defendants and/or Defendants’ counsel-of-record for any failure to comply with this order and seek timely entry of default and default judgment.  The Court’s authority for this order stems from California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(g) and (h), as well as Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.150 and 177.5.  The OSC hearing shall be held on March 12, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  However, if possible, the Court will issue a default judgment in advance of the hearing and will take the hearing off-calendar.

            6.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.