Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV28848, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28848    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 45

MARIA CASTANEDA, et al. vs GLADYS PEREZ, et al.

defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions against plaintiff hignacio moreno

Date of Hearing:        April 23, 2025                         Trial Date:       May 5, 2025

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        22STCV28848

Moving Parties:         Defendants Gladys Perez and Graciela Perez, individually and as trustee to The Graciela Perez Trust

Responding Parties:  No opposition

BACKGROUND

This is a habitability case. Plaintiffs Maria Castaneda, Hignacio Moreno, and Aylin Marin filed this action on September 6, 2022 against Defendants Gladys Perez and Graciela Perez, individually and as trustee to The Graciela Perez Trust, alleging 10 causes of action. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were tenants of the residential property, located at 4042 Daly Street, Los Angeles, California, 90031 where Plaintiffs were allegedly exposed to substandard conditions at the subject property, including improper unit and illegal construction, dysfunctional plumbing systems, mold contamination, improper fire protection systems, uneven flooring posing trip hazard, missing and broken tiling, exposure to hazardous dust and flea infestation, and stairway without railing.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendants Gladys Perez and Graciela Perez, individually and as trustee to The Graciela Perez Trust’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff Hignacio Moreno is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Gladys Perez and Graciela Perez, individually and as trustee to The Graciela Perez Trust move the court for an order for terminating sanctions, striking one or all of the pleadings of and dismissing Plaintiff Hignacio Moreno from this action with prejudice. Defendants make the motion due to Plaintiff Hignacio Moreno’s violation of this court’s January 21, 2025 Order that compelled him to appear for a deposition within 40 days of the Court’s Order.

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (CCP §§ 2023.010(g); CCP § 2025.450(h).) Misuse of the discovery process includes, but is not limited to, failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive discovery response, and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d), (f), (g).) The sanctions the Court can impose for misuse of the discovery process include terminating sanctions, by issuing an order dismissing the action against that party. (CCP § 2023.030(d), (e).) Terminating sanctions should be used sparingly and the trial court should attempt less severe alternatives unless the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective to induce the offending party’s compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 496 (finding terminating sanctions proper where plaintiffs violated two discovery orders).)

Defendants argue Plaintiff Hignacio Moreno failed to appear for his deposition, which was ordered by this court on January 27, 2025. Specifically, Defendants moved to compel all three Plaintiffs’ to appear for their depositions. The court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff Hignacio Moreno to have this deposition taken by counsel within 40 days of the Order. (Vining Decl. ¶2.) Following the granting of the motion, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that the depositions of all three Plaintiff would be taken on February 27, 2025, with Mr. Moreno’s scheduled and noticed for 2:00 p.m. (Vining Decl. ¶2.) Although the two other Plaintiffs appeared and had their deposition taken, Plaintiff Hignacio Moreno failed to appear and no explanation was given other than that he may have been deported. (Vining Decl. ¶3.)

The court grants the motion for terminating sanctions. Having failed to oppose the motion or explain his absence, the court assumes that plaintiff Hignacio Moreno has no justification for his failure to appear or violation of a court order.  Under the circumstances, the motion for terminating sanctions is appropriately granted.