Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV31760, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV31760, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 21STCV31760 Hearing Date: December 4, 2024 Dept: 29

Jimenez v. AMF Beverly Lanes
21STCV31760
Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted as to monetary sanctions and denied as to terminating sanctions.

Background

On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff Jonathan M. Jimenez (“Plaintiff”), representing himself in pro per, filed a complaint against Defendants AMF Beverly Lanes, Bowlero Corporation, AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability arising out of a physical altercation occurring on August 30, 2019, at a bowling alley on West Beverly Boulevard in Montebello.

On October 22, 2021, Defendant AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. (erroneously sued as AMF Beverly Lanes and Bowlero Corporation) (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On April 23, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel and ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), and Supplemental Requests for Production (Set One). Plaintiff did not comply or respond to follow up communications from Defendant’s counsel. (Buckner Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, 8-10.)

On July 29, 2024, the Court denied Defendant’s prior motion to dismiss the case as a terminating sanction. The dismissal was based on a defect in service and was without prejudice. In the Minute Order, the Court stated:

“The Court also notes, but does not decide, that the notice of ruling on the motion to compel was given electronically (and therefore may not be adequate).

The Court also observes, but does not decide. that the violation of one court order, although a serious matter that commonly merits sanctions, may not be a sufficient basis for a terminating sanction.”

(Minute Order, at p. 4.)

On August 29, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff by overnight delivery with a number of documents, including the Notice of Ruling. (Buckner Decl., ¶ 8 & Exhs. 4-6.) On October 16, 2024, Defendant against served Plaintiff by overnight delivery with a number of documents, including the Notice of Ruling. (Id., ¶ 9 & Exhs. 7-9.)

On November 1, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff was served by overnight delivery.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling answers to interrogatories, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling responses to requests for production, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, section 2023.030 provides for monetary, evidence, issue, and terminating sanctions for any “misuse of the discovery process,” “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” A “misuse of the discovery process” is defined to include (among other things) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)

The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to and commensurate with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.; see also, e.g., Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)

Terminating sanctions should be used sparingly. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 496.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure, a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 604.) But where discovery violations are “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.” (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) Repeated and willful violations of discovery orders that prejudice the opposing party may warrant a terminating sanction. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702; Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246; Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622.)

The primary purpose of discovery sanctions is to obtain compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and the Court’s orders. It is not to punish. (Newland v. Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613; Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) A discovery sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1194; see also 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶¶ 8:2214-2220.)

It is “never justified” for a court to impose a terminating sanction “solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction.” (Newland, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s violation of a court order requiring Plaintiff to provide responses to interrogatories and requests for production.

Plaintiff has violated a court order and has refused to comply with his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act. This is serious discovery abuse warranting serious sanctions.

For terminating sanctions, however, a party must generally present evidence of repeated and/or willful misuse of the discovery process, as well as evidence that less severe sanctions have not (or likely will not) lead to compliance with the discovery rules. Defendant has not, on this record at this time, made such a showing. There has not been a showing of a history or pattern of willful abuse or repeated violations that have not been (or cannot be) cured by lesser sanctions.

Moreover, a discovery sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. (Rutledge, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194.)

Here, at this time, a terminating sanction would create such a windfall for Defendant.

Defendant does not seek other nonmonetary sanctions.

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $250. That request is granted. Plaintiff has committed serious discovery abuse, including violation of a court order. This conduct warrants monetary sanctions. (See Buckner Decl., ¶ 11.)

Conclusion

The Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART the motion of Defendant AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. for sanctions.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Jonathan Jimenez to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $250 to Defendant AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.