Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case Number: KC067548??? Hearing Date: April 29, 2016??? Dept: J
Re: Sigifredo Torres Ochoa v. Ana Rosa Rios, et al. (KC067548)
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Moving Parties: Defendants Ana Rosa Rios and Evalia Rios
Respondent: No timely opposition filed
POS: Moving OK per the court’s ex parte order
Plaintiff Sigifredo Torres Ochoa alleges that Defendants Ana Rosa and Evalia Rios breached their agreement to purchase a residential property together by serving Plaintiff with Sixty Day Notice to Quit and demanding him to vacate the premises. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants never intended to give Plaintiff a 1/3 interest in the subject property as promised. The Complaint, filed on 3/24/15, asserts causes of action for:
1. Breach of Contract
2. Fraud
On 4/5/16, Defendants? ex parte application to shorten time for a motion for terminating sanctions was granted. The hearing was set for 4/29/16. Plaintiff was to serve his opposition to the motion by 4/18/16. Any reply to the opposition was to be served by 4/22/16.
The Jury Trial is set for 5/17/16.
Defendants Ana Rosa Rios and Evalia Rios (?Defendants?) move pursuant to CCP ?? 2016.040, 2017.010, 2023.030, 2030.290 and 2030.300, for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Sigifredo Torres Ochoa (?Plaintiff?), and for an order requiring Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record to pay sanctions and reasonable attorney fees incurred by Defendants in the amount of $1,400.00 in connecting with being require to bring the within motion.
If anyone engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction, issue sanction, evidence sanction, terminating sanction, and contempt sanction. (CCP ? 2023.030.) The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487.) A prerequisite to the imposition of the dismissal sanction is that the party has willfully failed to comply with a court order. (Ibid.) Terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective. (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered as a first response when noncompliance is through no fault of the party. (Ibid.)
Defendants represent that terminating sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff failed to comply with the March 8, 2016 court order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified written responses to the first set of discovery propounded on December 19, 2016, and that given a trial date of May 17, 2016, the failure of Plaintiff and/or his counsel to provide discovery responses prejudices Defendants? ability to prepare the matter for trial. Defendants submit the following evidence:
On March 8, 2016, this court issued a ruling on Defendants? motion to compel responses to outstanding discovery. The court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the outstanding discovery by March 18, 2016, and to pay sanctions by March 28, 2016. (Motion, Santana Decl. ? 3.)
On March 8, 2016, counsel for Defendants served on Plaintiff?s counsel of record, Douglas Bader, a ?Notice of Ruling? in connection with the motion to compel. (Id., ? 4, Exh. A.)
As of March 22, 2016, counsel for Defendants had not received any of the discovery responses and thus, he wrote a meet and confer letter to Mr. Bader regarding the lack of responses to outstanding discovery. (Id., ? 5, Exh. B.)
As of April 3, 2016, counsel for Defendants has not received any communications from Mr. Bader, nor any responses to the discovery, nor the sanctions. (Id., ? 6.)
Given a trial date of May 17, 2016, the failure of Plaintiff and/or his counsel to provide discovery responses prejudices the Defendants? ability to prepare the matter for trial. (Id., ? 7.)
Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to this motion or offer any excuse for failing to comply with his discovery obligations or the prior order of this court. The court therefore can only assume that this failure is willful on the part of Plaintiff. The court also finds that the willful failure of Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations and the order of this court has severely impaired the ability for Defendants to effectively prepare for the trial of this case, less than one month away. Under the circumstances, it appears that any sanctions short of a terminating sanction would be futile and therefore, a terminating sanction is appropriate. The motion for terminating sanctions is granted. The action is dismissed with prejudice. Defendants? request for further monetary sanctions in connection with this motion is denied, since it appears that such an order would be futile.