Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV15786, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15786    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 14, 2024                      TRIAL DATE: May 21, 2024

CASE:                         James Weldon Schott v. Miguel A. Melgoza

CASE NO.:                 20STCV15786           

(1) MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Plaintiff James Weldon Schott

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 3/11/24.

CASE HISTORY:

·         04/24/20: Complaint filed.

·         09/27/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for partition of a parcel of real property and for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant induced him to loan money for the purchase of the property to operate it as a dispensary.

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

            Defendant Miguel Melgoza’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint is hereby stricken in its entirety and default entered this date against Defendant.

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is MOOT.

            All future hearings are advanced to this date and vacated.

            The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment for May 21, 2024 at 8:30 AM.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

            Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions for Defendant’s failure to respond to discovery despite Court orders.

Request for Judicial Notice

            Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of its October 31, 2023 Minute Order in this action granting Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production and his Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions, and imposing monetary sanctions on Defendant. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).

Legal Standard for Terminating Sanctions

The Court has the authority to impose sanctions against a party that engages in any misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030), including “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d).) A party engaging in this conduct may be subject to sanctions including monetary sanctions (Code Civ Proc. § 2023.030(a)), evidence sanctions (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(c)) or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(d).)  “[T]rial courts should select sanctions tailored to the harm caused by the misuse of the discovery process and should not exceed what is required to protect the party harmed by the misuse of the discovery process.” (Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191, disapproved of on other grounds in Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach. (Id.) Generally, the appropriate sanctions when a party repeatedly and willfully fails to provide evidence to the opposing party as required by the discovery rules is preclusion of that evidence from the trial. (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, disapproved of on other grounds by Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204.)

In considering a motion for terminating sanctions, the Court is to attempt to “tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618-1619.)  In that case, the appellate court explained:

[T]he question before this court is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose. [Citation.] Moreover, imposition of a lesser sanction would have permitted [defendants] to benefit from their stalling tactics. [Citation.] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by tailoring the sanction to the particular abuse.

(Id. at 1620.)  In deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

Defendant’s Failure to Respond to Discovery

            Plaintiff argues that terminating sanctions should be granted because Defendant has failed to respond to basic discovery, to comply with Court orders to produce responses to that discovery, and to pay sanctions for misuse of the discovery process.

            On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with form interrogatories and requests for production via overnight service. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 1.A [Form interrogatories]; 2.A [Requests for Production].) After Defendant failed to provide responses within the deadlines provided, Plaintiff moved to compel responses on July 31, 2023. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 1-2.) The Court granted the motions on October 31, 2023, ordering Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days, and ordering sanctions against Defendant only in the amount of $2,180, to be paid in the same timeframe. (RJN Exh. A.) On December 7, 2023, the Court granted a motion by Defendant’s former counsel of record to withdraw from representation in this action on the basis that Defendant had ceased responding to his counsel. (See December 6, 2023 Minute Order.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that he attempted to contact Defendant Melgoza via letter on December 29, 2023 outlining the procedural status of the case, informing Defendant of his noncompliance, and advising Defendant of Plaintiff’s intent to file this motion. (Declaration of Matthew T. Ward ISO Mot. Exhs. 4-5.) To date, Defendant has not responded, nor has he paid the sanctions owed. (Ward Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

            Plaintiff contends that terminating sanctions are warranted because Defendant has failed to comply with Court orders, ignored monetary sanctions, and appears to have abandoned the case altogether. The Court concurs. Defendant has failed to comply with basic discovery requests for almost a full year and is four months overdue on paying the monetary sanctions imposed by this Court. As has been the pattern for the past several months, Defendant has not responded to this motion to offer any defense or explanation for his failure to engage with this action. The Court is therefore forced to conclude that Defendant’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations and with this Court’s orders is willful, and that no lighter measure will serve to remedy the prejudice to Plaintiff or deter future violations by Defendant. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order granting terminating sanctions.

//

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

Motion for Summary Judgment

            Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment against Defendant. As the Court has granted terminating sanctions against Defendant, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

            Defendant Miguel Melgoza’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint is hereby stricken in its entirety and default entered on this date against Defendant.

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is MOOT.

            All future hearings are advanced to this date and vacated.

            The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment for May 21, 2024 at 8:30 AM.

            Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 14, 2024                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.