Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV38667, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 22STCV38667    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 45

james h. Tuggle v. kamath

motion for terminating sanctions

Date of Hearing:          1/22/25                                   Trial Date:       N/A

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         22STCV38667

Moving Party:             Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, James H. Tuggle individually, and James H. Tuggle, as Trustee, of the James H. Tuggle Family Revocable Living Trust

Responding Party:       Unopposed

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff James H. Tuggle, individually, and James H. Tuggle, as Trustee of the James H. Tuggle Family Revocable Living Trust (“Plaintiffs”) brought the underlying legal malpractice action against Defendant and Cross-Complainant Reshma Kamath (“Defendant”) who was Plaintiffs’ prior attorney, as well as DOES 1 through 20 for the following causes of action: (1) damages for malpractice; (2) breach of contract;  and (3) financial elder abuse. Plaintiffs contend that in April of 2021, they engaged the services of Defendant(s) to seek legal counsel on how to halt the foreclosure proceeding of a hotel Plaintiffs had purchased with a note secured by a deed of trust in 2016. The foreclosure proceeding was due to alleged delinquent payments. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to secure Plaintiffs any of the relief sought and consequently committed malpractice.

On February 21, 2023, Defendant Kamath filed the Cross-Complaint, alleging the following eleven causes of action against Plaintiffs: (1) defamation—libel; (2) defamation per se; (3) defamation—slander; (4) malicious prosecution; (5) abuse of process; (6) racial discrimination; (7) gender discrimination; (8) unfair misleading business practices, Bus & Prof. Code Section 17200; (9) breach of contract; (10) breach of fiduciary duty; and (11) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant Kamath represents herself in propria persona.

On February 28, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ special motion to strike the first through fifth causes of action of the Cross-Complaint, and on March 26, 2024, this Court sustained the demurrers of Plaintiffs so the sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action, with leave for Defendant Kamath to amend the tenth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. However, Defendant Kamath never did so. Thus, the only remaining cause of action in the Cross-Complaint is the ninth cause of action for (9)

breach of contract.               

On November 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions against Defendant Kamath for her Failure to Comply with Court Order of September 30, 2024, along with the Declaration of Plaintiffs’ attorney, Robert N. Conrad (“Conrad Decl.”).

On January 3, 2025, the underlying action was reassigned from the Honorable Mel Red Recana to the Honorable Virginia Keeny.

Defendant Kamath does not oppose and there is no reply.

[Tentative] Ruling

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ and Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Request for Monetary Sanctions. The Court awards Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,023.50, to be paid by Defendant Kamath.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may impose a terminating sanction after considering the totality of the circumstances. That is, the court must consider the willfulness of the actions, the detriment to the propounding party, and the number of attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Courts are justified in imposing a terminating sanction 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. (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) 

If appropriate, the court may impose a terminating sanction against the party misusing the discovery process by one of the following orders: (1) striking the pleadings or parts of the pleadings, (2) staying further proceedings until the discovery order is obeyed, (3) dismissing the action, or any party of the action, (4) rendering judgment by default, or (5) imposing a contempt sanction. (CCP § 2023.030 (d).

ANALYSIS

Procedural History

On March 25, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Filing a Lawsuit against Rolf M. Treu, Mel Red Recana, James H. Tuggle, and Robert Conrad wherein she set forth that according to her prior notification, she had filed a federal lawsuit against the Honorable Rolf M. Treu:

Amongst other things, as RESHMA KAMATH had prior notified ROLF M. TREU there will now be a FEDERAL LAWSUIT against MR. TREU for his racism as a judicial officer in the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – with his White compatriots, JAMES TUGGLE, MELVIN TEITLEBAUM, SUE BALISTOCKY AND ROBERT CONRAD, and his racist staff members in his courthouse. Many other LA Court judges will be named in that lawsuit for their disdainful behavior and omissions. Sadly, some more White judges will rule on this. The number of White judges and their pro-White judges of color who rule fairly are rare. The pro-White or pro-Male attitude in California courthouses will keep going. Younger White females are treated ever so special like daisies in a garden. Racial Misogyny is so present in California courts – that even the White and/or Female Judges of Color who were picked by a White governor are equally racially misogynistic.

(3.25.24 Notice, pgs. 1-2.)

Defendant Kamath further provided as follows regarding her future engagement in this case:

As RESHMA KAMATH has stated neither will she pay a penny to this Court or the racist White people in this case, nor will she further litigate this matter. RESHMA KAMATH will not waste time litigating this case, because it will be thrown out shortly.

(Id., pg. 2.)

On April 9, 2024, Defendant filed a “Notion Re: Federal Case Filed Against Defendant—Judicial Officer Rolf M. Treu” which similarly set forth as follows:

Goes without saying, RESHMA KAMATH will not appear again in this case, not file any pleading/opposition, not pay any racist sanctions (to keep giving White people free money for no work and for violating the law is more racist White/non-White behavior), and just not litigate this matter anymore.

(4.9.24. Notice, pgs. 1-2.)

On May 8, 2024, Plaintiffs served his first set of demands for production of documents (“First Set of Demands”) on Kamath—pertaining to Kamath’s remaining cause of action (9) for breach of contract.

On September 30, 2024, the Honorable Mel Red Recana ruled as follows with respect to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Kamath to Respond to the First Set of Demands for Production of Documents, to Produce Documents, and for Sanctions:

The court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to compel responses from Defendant for Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). The court orders Defendant to serve responses, without objections, this discovery request within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $3,023.50 in attorney's fees and costs and mandatory sanctions pursuant to section 2023.050. The court orders Defendant to pay $3,023.50 to Plaintiffs within 20 days of the date of this hearing.

(Mot., Conrad Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.)

Terminating Sanctions

Conrad declares that as of the date of writing the instant motion (November 12, 2024), he has yet to receive any response to any of the foregoing discovery requests or the production of a single document (Conrad Decl., ¶ 4.) Given Judge Recana already ordered Defendant Kamath to respond and to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,023.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs within twenty days (20)—and that Defendant has failed to tender payment or respond to discovery—the Court agrees that Defendant is now violating Court orders. Furthermore, the Court notes Defendant has declared she will no longer further litigate this matter and will not appear in this case again or pay sanctions. While Defendant sets forth her reasoning for no longer appearing in the instant action in her prior filings, the Court finds such reasoning deficient.

First, Defendant’s federal action or any other action does not automatically stay the instant case; moreover, Defendant does not request that any other actions stay the instant case pending resolution.

Second, Defendant’s preemptive argument is insufficient to oppose a Court order, especially given Defendant sets forth no concrete instances, evidence, or authoritative argument to substantiate her claims of prejudice.  Defendant had the opportunity to oppose Plaintiffs’ prior motion to compel and be heard: she chose not to appear or oppose. The same is true of the instant motion. The Court cannot consider Defendant’s prior and conclusory statements which she asserted before the instant motion was filed. As an attorney, Defendant surely has a working knowledge and appreciation of the relevant rules and procedures governing this Court. If Defendant is affirmatively choosing not to avail herself to the opportunity of opposition, she cannot simply carve out her own procedure instead.

Thus, in weighing the totality of these circumstances, the Court finds Defendant is willfully violating Court orders, as evidenced by her prior statements and that she is doing so to the detriment of Plaintiffs, as the propounding parties. Furthermore, this is not Plaintiffs’ first attempt to obtain discovery. There is currently a motion on calendar to deem RFAs admitted which is scheduled to be heard on February 5, 2025. Finally, it is clear that less severe (monetary) sanctions were ineffective in producing Defendant’s compliance with the discovery rules.

As such, the Court finds the imposition of terminating sanctions justified, as Defendant is failing to comply with the Court’s September 30, 2024, Order.

Plaintiffs are requesting that Defendant / Cross-Complainant’s ninth cause of action for breach of contract be stricken pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.300(c), 2023.010(g), and 2023.030. The Court finds such request appropriate and will issue an order striking Defendant Kamath’s ninth and only remaining cause of action for breach of contract.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,023.50 pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010(g), and 2031.300(c) against defendant. Plaintiffs correctly predicted Defendant would not oppose the instant motion so no further monetary sanctions are warranted for any time reviewing an opposition or drafting a reply. Counsel’s 3.3 hours spent preparing this motion at an hourly rate of $595 is reasonable, plus the $60 filing fee cost.

Thus, monetary sanctions are awarded in the total sum of $2,023.50 against Kamath for the instant motion. This is in addition to sanctions in the sum of $3,023.50 which Defendant was already ordered to pay in the September 30, 2024, order.

CONCLUSION

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ and Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions and awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,023.50 to be paid by Defendant / Cross-Complainant Kamath within 20 days.