This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 02:43:28 (UTC).

AGUILEO GUTIERREZ VS RAYMOND C. PERRY

Case Summary

On 11/02/2018 AGUILEO GUTIERREZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RAYMOND C PERRY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3458

  • Filing Date:

    11/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GUTIERREZ AGUILEO

Defendant

PERRY RAYMOND C. AKA CHRIS PERRY

Cross Plaintiff

PERRY RAYMOND C.

Cross Defendant

GUTIERREZ AGUILEO AKA AQUILEO GUTIERREZ DBA A. GUTIERREZ ROOFING CO.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

KIM JAE HONG

Defendant Attorney

WIDGER THOMAS ALAN

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/03/2020

9/3/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/03/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Non-Appearance C...)

7/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Non-Appearance C...)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

2/19/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Jae H. Kim in Support of Motion for Terminating Sanctions

2/19/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Jae H. Kim in Support of Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

2/19/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

10/3/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

11/7/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

10/3/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

6/7/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Answer - Answer

4/15/2019: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer

4/5/2019: Answer - Answer

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

4/5/2019: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

3/12/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

2/13/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

1/17/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/2/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/2/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11/2/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/05/2021
  • Hearing11/05/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2021
  • Hearing07/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/03/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 07/08/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review scheduled for 07/08/2020 at 02:00 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Non-Appearance C...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Non-Appearance C...) of 07/08/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 07/08/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 07/08/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review scheduled for 07/08/2020 at 02:00 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 07/08/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 03/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by: Raymond C. Perry (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Aguileo Gutierrez (Plaintiff); As to: Raymond C. Perry (Defendant); Service Date: 01/13/2019; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Aguileo Gutierrez (Plaintiff); As to: Raymond C. Perry (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Aguileo Gutierrez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/01/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13458    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: 26

Gutierrez v. Perry, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Aguileo Gutierrez’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions is DENIED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $600.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT RAYMOND C. PERRY.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Aguileo Gutierrez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and fraud against Defendant Raymond C. Perry (“Defendant”) on November 2, 2018. On April 5, 2019, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint for breach of contract and negligence against Plaintiff. On November 7, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admission deemed against Defendant. (Minute Order, 111/07/19.)

On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions, asking the Court to strike Defendant’s answer to the Complaint, enter Defendant’s default, and award Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the sum of $3,060.00. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

The court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted here. Plaintiff points to no conduct by Defendant that amounts to willful violation of a Court order. In fact, there is no evidence of any violation of a Court order, willful or otherwise. (Motion, Kim Decl.) It appears that Plaintiff is seeking terminating and monetary sanctions on the grounds that Defendant has failed to respond to discovery propounded throughout this action. (Id. at ¶¶3-5 and Exhs. A-C.) Plaintiff, however, has not sought Court orders with respect to this discovery in order to effectuate Defendant’s compliance with the discovery statutes. The Court will not escalate to terminating sanctions without a showing that other, lesser sanctions are ineffective in obtaining compliance with the Court’s orders.

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions with respect to Defendant’s conduct, the Court finds that such sanctions are properly noticed and warranted under the moving statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendant on April 18, 2019. (Motion, Kim Decl., Exh. A.) On June 8, 2019, Defendant served objections to the requests. (Id. at Exh. B.) Responses, however, were due by May 23, 2019 and any response thereafter waived the right to object. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2030.290, 2031.260, 2031.290.) Defendant’s responses, therefore, were improper and are subject to sanctions. However, the amount sought in sanctions is excessive. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $600.00 for two hours of attorney time billed at $300.00 per hour. (Motion, Kim Decl., ¶7.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Aguileo Gutierrez’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions is DENIED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $600.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT RAYMOND C. PERRY. SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

*Hearing may need to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Please e mail clerk at 8:30 a.m. <SSCdept26@LACourt.org>

Case Number: 18STLC13458    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Aguileo Gutierrez’s Motion to Deem Admitted Matters served on Defendant Raymond C. Perry, is GRANTED.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Defendant Raymond C. Perry on August 8, 2019, admitted.

ANALYSIS:

On November 2, 2018, Plaintiff Aguileo Gutierrez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of lease agreement against Defendant Raymond C. Perry (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted on October 3, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Defendant has not provided verified responses to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff, nor filed an opposition to the motion. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. Based on the foregoing, the MOTION IS GRANTED, and the court deems the Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Defendant on August 8, 2019, admitted.

Moving party to give notice.