Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STLC01133, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC01133 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: 48
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
CONNECT BY AMERICAN FAMILY, Plaintiff, vs. HAROLDO LOPEZ, Defendant. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING
SANCTIONS Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. March 21, 2023 |
On
February 9, 2021, Plaintiff Connect by American Family filed this subrogation action
against Defendant Haroldo Lopez, and on May 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint (“FAC”). Defendant filed an answer
on December 2, 2021.
On
January 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions. Defendant did not file an opposition.
A. The Motion For Terminating Sanctions Is
Granted.
A
court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that
is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse
of the discovery process includes failing to respond to discovery, unjustifiably
making unmeritorious objections to discovery, and disobeying a court order to provide
discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) “The trial court may order a terminating sanction
for discovery abuse ‘after considering 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.’ [Citation.] Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating
sanctions should not be made lightly. But
where a violation is 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.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (Los Defensores).)
Plaintiff
argues that Defendant has abused the discovery process. On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories
on Defendant. Defendant did not respond. On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet
and confer letter, and Defendant did not respond. On October 20, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
motion to compel responses to the Form Interrogatories. The Court ordered Defendant to pay $1,411.65 in
sanctions and serve verified responses, without objections, to the Form Interrogatories
within 21 days. Defendant still has not responded
to the Form Interrogatories.
Defendant’s
abuse of the discovery process has stalled Plaintiff’s ability to pursue its case
for eleven months, and trial is imminent.
The Final Status Conference is scheduled for May 1, 2023, and the trial is
scheduled for May 15, 2023.
Under
the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that less severe sanctions
would be ineffective and that terminating sanctions are warranted. The motion is therefore granted, and the Court
will strike Defendant’s answer.
B. Plaintiff Must Serve and File a Statement
of Damages Before Entry of Default and Default Judgment.
Before
a default may be entered, a Statement of Damages must be served “in an action to
recover damages for personal injuries or wrongful death.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subds. (b)-(d).) The FAC includes a claim for subrogation arising
from Plaintiff’s “payments under the Insured's policy for the repair of the property
and uninsured motorist bodily injury costs.”
(FAC ¶ 10.) Thus, the underlying action
that gave rise to this action was to recover damages for personal injuries, and
Plaintiff’s subrogation claim is arguably “an action to recover damages for personal
injuries.”
Although
the FAC expressly demanded a judgment of $34,892.35, to ensure that Defendant has
the required formal notice (see Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a)) and to avoid
entering a void judgment, the Court will require a Statement of Damages in this
action.
Accordingly,
before Plaintiff files a request for entry of default, Plaintiff is ordered to serve
and file a Statement of Damages in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section
425.11, subdivisions (c)-(d).
C. Conclusion
The
motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
request for monetary sanctions, to compensate it for bringing this motion, is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Defendant is ORDERED to pay $1,410.00 in monetary
sanctions to Plaintiff within 21 days.
The
Court orders the Answer filed by Haroldo Lopez on December 2, 2021 STRICKEN. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)
An
Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment is scheduled for May
22, 2023 in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Moving
party to give notice.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org
indicating intention to submit. Parties intending
to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with
Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical
or N95 or KN95 mask.
Dated this 21st day of March 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior
Court |