Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV23941, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23941    Hearing Date: February 10, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 10, 2025                             TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Emerita del Carmen Munoz v. The Commerce Casino & Hotel

CASE NO.:                 23STCV23941           

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ISSUE AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant California Commerce Club, Inc., erroneously sued as The Commerce Casino & Hotel

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 02/05/25

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            Thiis is an action for breach of contract and fraud that was filed on October 2, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant improperly withheld her winnings from a raffle held at Defendant’s casino.

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions, or, in the alternative, issue and evidentiary sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

            Dismissal is entered this date as to all Defendants with prejudice.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions, or, in the alternative, issue and evidentiary sanctions.

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.) 

[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.), and

            Moreover, in deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: 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.)

Analysis

            Defendant moves for terminating sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff has willfully refused to produce discovery responses despite a Court order to do so. Defendant served Plaintiff with interrogatories and requests for production via mail on January 4, 2024. (Declaration of Michael J. Ryan ISO Mot. ¶ 4; Exh. 1.) Despite multiple attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff, no responses were received. (Id. ¶¶ 5-7; Exhs. 2-3.) Defendant served and filed Motions to Compel on March 11, 2024. (Id. ¶ 8; Exh. 4.) On June 24, 2024, the Court granted the motions without sanctions, finding, based on Plaintiff’s statements at that hearing, that the circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust notwithstanding Defendant’s right to compel responses. (Id. ¶ 9; Exh. 5.) Defendant states that its counsel repeatedly conferred with Plaintiff between June 24, 2024 and August 8, 2024, but that Plaintiff never responded to the discovery despite numerous extension by Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12; Exhs. 7-9.) Indeed, at the last conference on August 8, 2024, Defendant’s counsel states that Plaintiff outright refused to provide responses. (Id. ¶ 12.) To date, no responses have been received. (Id. ¶ 13.)

            Defendant argues, based on this record, that Plaintiff has willfully refused to comply with her Court-ordered discovery obligations, and, therefore, that terminating sanctions are warranted. The Court concurs. Plaintiff herself was present in person for the June 24, 2024 hearing in which she was ordered to provide responses to the outstanding discovery. Plaintiff has not done so, nor has she offered any explanation for that failure. In fact, Defendant’s counsel testifies under penalty of perjury that she affirmatively declared her intent not to comply with the Court’s order. (Ryan Decl. ¶ 12.) Based on this uncontroverted evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has defied the Court’s orders such that no lesser sanction would be appropriate.

CONCLUSION:

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

            Dismissal is entered this date as to all Defendants with prejudice.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2025                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.