Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV28569, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff Bahram Rasizadeh filed this action against Defendant Schuster Land Corporation.

On October 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions and prohibited Defendant from introducing witnesses regarding the condition of the property, the cause of the conditions of the property, the citations, or any attempts to abate the conditions at the property. Defendant did not oppose that motion or appear at the hearing.

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s PMK on November 8, 2023. (Littlefield Decl. ¶ 4.)

On October 26, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions that was primarily based on Defendant’s failure to serve supplemental responses pursuant to the Court’s August 31, 2023 order. Defendant did not oppose that motion or appear at the hearing.

Plaintiff’s counsel called or emailed Defendant’s counsel every business day before the November 8, 2023 deposition. (Littlefield Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. C.) Defendant did not respond, and its PMK did not appear for the deposition. (Littlefield Decl. ¶ 7; Motion at pp. 5-6.)

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for terminating sanctions. Defendant did not file an opposition.

At the November 27, 2023 Final Status Conference, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that he had not heard from Defendant. Defendant did not appear.

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.)

Prior evidentiary and monetary sanctions have not deterred Defendant and have not been effective in compelling Defendant to comply with its discovery obligations. Defendant’s disregard of Plaintiff’s discovery motions and failure to oppose or even appear for those hearings demonstrates a pattern of willful discovery abuse. Additionally, the Final Status Conference and Jury Trial are scheduled for the same date as this motion, after the Court continued those dates due to Defendant’s failure to appear at the November 27, 2023 Final Status Conference. Plaintiff has filed his pretrial documents, but Defendant has not.

Under the totality of the circumstances, Plaintiff has shown a history of willful discovery abuse by Defendant such that less severe sanctions would be ineffective.

Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant’s answer, filed on February 21, 2024, is stricken.

The Court notes that Plaintiff seeks, in part, monetary damages for personal injury, and the alleged damages only “exceed[] $25,000.) (Complaint ¶ 6 [“mental and emotional distress”], Complaint ¶ 9.)

To obtain a judgment for personal injury damages, Plaintiff must serve a Statement of Damages on Defendant prior to entry of default. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (c).)

For other damages, the Court cannot award more in a default judgment than the amount demanded in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a).) To obtain a judgment in excess of $25,000 for non-personal injury damages, Plaintiff must file and serve an amended complaint that alleges the actual damages sought. Plaintiff is granted 30 days’ leave to amend the complaint for this purpose. Alternatively, Plaintiff may proceed with requesting a default judgment not to exceed $25,000.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a request for entry of default and default judgment, or file and serve an amended complaint with an updated damages total.

An Order to Show Case Re: Dismissal for Failure to Obtain Default Judgment is scheduled for June 27, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

The Final Status Conference scheduled for May 19, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. and the Jury Trial scheduled for June 2, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. are VACATED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court