Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV00695, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21VECV00695    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: W

DEBORAH LYNN REECE V. RICHARD M. LESTER, ET AL.

plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against defendants

Date of Hearing:        January 26, 2023                  Trial Date:       March 27, 2023

Department:              W                                            Case No.:        21VECV00695

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Deborah Lynn Reece

Responding Party:     None

BACKGROUND

This is a legal malpractice action.  Plaintiff Deborah Lynn Reece alleges she was injured in a motorbike/trike versus auto accident in Las Vegas, Nevada on May 30, 2013 and retained Defendant Richard M. Lester, A Law Corporation, (“Lester Law Corporation”) and Richard M. Lester (“Lester”) on or about October 31, 2013 to represent her.  Plaintiff alleges that the attorneys who worked on the case were Defendants Lester and Michael DeKruif (“DeKrui”).  Plaintiff alleges Defendants represented that the case was in the legal process of being resolved, but the litigation process was a long one and Plaintiff would eventually obtain recovery for her damages from the accident.  Plaintiff alleges that, after five years, she became suspicious and called DeKruif on May 28, 2020 who told her that Defendants had dropped the ball regarding the statute of limitations for her claim but were willing to compensate her for her injuries in the amount of $20,000.00 plus payment of her medical bills.  

On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Lester Law Corporation, Lester, and DeKruif, alleging:

1)     Legal Malpractice/General Negligence

2)     Breach of Contract

3)     Intentional Tort

Plaintiff now moves for court orders compelling Defendants Lester Law Corporation, Lester, and DeKruif to serve responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,568.91 for each motion.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks a court order for terminating sanctions against Defendants Richard M. Lester, a law corporation, Richard M. Lester, and Michael DeKruif due to their failure to comply with court orders regarding discovery, failure to participate in discovery and failure to pay previously ordered sanctions.

Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where imposition of terminating sanctions is appropriate without first imposing issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. (See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 490-91.)

Plaintiff propounded discovery, which included Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants on November 17, 2021. Upon no responses or production being made, Plaintiff moved to compel Defendant’s discovery responses and on August 24, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the foregoing discovery, without objections. The court also imposed monetary sanctions. To date, Defendants have not complied with the order.

Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time. Defendants failed to oppose the motion to compel discovery and have not opposed this motion. As a result, it appears Defendants have abandoned the case. Moreover, the court previously imposed monetary sanctions for which Defendants have chosen not to comply with. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Defendants’ answer is STRICKEN.