Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV02647, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02647    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

GABRIEL R. SANCHEZ,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

KASRA MIZBAN, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)

      CASE NO.: 21STCV02647

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS KASRA MIZBAN AND NASSER MIZBAN’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, ISSUE SANCTIONS, AND/OR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

December 9, 2022

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On January 22, 2021, plaintiff Gabriel R. Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Kasra Mizban and Nasser Mizban (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 6, 2019. 

On September 28, 2022, Defendants filed this motion for terminating, issue, and/or monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.  Defendants bring this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 on the ground that Plaintiff “has repeatedly engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process by submitting false evidence and/or testimony under penalty of perjury.”  (Motion, 2:10-12.)  Defendants claim Plaintiff has repeatedly misrepresented the status (or existence) of a driver’s license, provided false testimony about his conduct at the scene of the accident, including the reason why he left the scene of the accident, and is concealing and withholding information about third-party witnesses. 

On November 4, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this motion so that the parties could provide supplemental briefing.  Having considered the supplemental briefs filed on November 18, 2022, the Court does not find that exceptional circumstances exist which would allow it to impose sanctions pursuant to CCP 2023.010 and 2023.030.  (City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecooperes, LLC (2022) ---Cal.Rptr.3d--- 2022 WL 12010415.)  Although this is not a motion strictly about spoliation, it does not appear that Plaintiff has destroyed any evidence or that no other remedies are available.  If needed, for example, Defendants could file a motion for leave to take a second deposition session to inquire about Plaintiff’s inconsistent responses and request that Plaintiff be responsible for the costs of that deposition.  Last, as previously iterated in a prior tentative ruling, any inconsistencies in his testimony and discovery responses can be evaluated by the factfinder as an issue of credibility. 

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.    

 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.