This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/31/2020 at 05:09:07 (UTC).

ALBA PENATE VS CARLOS GARCIA

Case Summary

On 05/17/2019 ALBA PENATE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CARLOS GARCIA. 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 Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4764

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PENATE ALBA

Defendant

GARCIA CARLOS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GLADKOV SERGEI

Defendant Attorney

KWAK JOHN J

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

8/31/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/1/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

2/6/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel answers to form interrogatories; ...)

12/10/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel answers to form interrogatories; ...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/11/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel verified answers without objections to demand for idenfication and production of documents, set one

10/15/2019: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel verified answers without objections to demand for idenfication and production of documents, set one

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel verified answers without objections to form interrogatories, set one

10/15/2019: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel verified answers without objections to form interrogatories, set one

Answer - Answer

7/9/2019: Answer - Answer

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

7/9/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Summons - Summons on Complaint

5/17/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

5/17/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/17/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/17/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

5/17/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Carlos Garcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Filed By: Carlos Garcia (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 08/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/20/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 08/31/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 08/31/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 07/21/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 08/31/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 05/13/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 07/21/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Carlos Garcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Carlos Garcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Alba Penate (Plaintiff); As to: Carlos Garcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Alba Penate (Plaintiff); As to: Carlos Garcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Alba Penate (Plaintiff); As to: Carlos Garcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04764    Hearing Date: August 31, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Carlos Garcia’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF ALBA PENATE’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff Alba Penate (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Carlos Garcia (“Defendant”). On December 10, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery. (Minute Order, 12/10/19.) Plaintiff was ordered to serve responses to discovery within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Plaintiff on the same date. (Motion, Kwak Decl., Exhs. C-F.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order, accordingly, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions. (Id. at ¶14.)

To date, no opposition has been filed to the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

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 warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding written discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on Plaintiff by mail. (Motion, Kwak Decl., Exh. D.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff did not comply nor contact defense counsel. (Id. at ¶14.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s December 10, 2019 order to be willful. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions, she has not opposed it.

Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff has no intention of complying with the Court’s orders or prosecuting her claims against Defendant. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.)

Conclusion

Defendant Carlos Garcia’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF ALBA PENATE’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04764    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant's Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories (No. 1) are GRANTED.  Plaintiff Alba Penate is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 20 days of the written notice of this Order.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff Alba Penate (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Carlos Garcia (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that on May 17, 2017, Defendant negligently drove his vehicle and rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On October 15, 2019, Defendant filed Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Answers without Objections to Form Interrogatories, set one, and Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, set one (collectively, the “Motions”).

RELIEF REQUESTED: On July 9, 2019, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, by mail. Responses were due by August 8, 2019, but Plaintiff did not timely respond. Defendant granted Plaintiff multiple extensions to respond. However, to date, no responses have been received from Plaintiff.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of December 5, 2019 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 5, 2019 [ ] Late [X] None

LEGAL STANDARD:

A court is permitted to intervene if a party fails to timely serve responses to discovery requests. (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) The propounding party may move the court for orders compelling responses to interrogatories and demands for inspection. (CCP §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Carlos Garcia’s Motions to Compel Verified Responses without Objections to Form Interrogatories (No. 1) and Request for Production of Documents (No. 1) are GRANTED. Plaintiff Alba Penate is ordered to serve responses without objections within 20 days of the written notice of this order.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and requests for production of documents, set one.

Defendant served the form interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Plaintiff on July 9, 2019. (Kwak Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Despite granting Plaintiff an extension to respond, to date, no responses have been served on Defendant. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-12.) Accordingly, Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Verified Answers without Objections to Form Interrogatories, set one, and (2) Motion to Compel Verified Answers without Objections to Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, set one, are GRANTED. Responses are due within 20 days.

Although failing to timely respond to form interrogatories or a request for production can constitute a misuse of the discovery process and warrant sanctions, (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d)), Defendant does not request any sanctions against Plaintiff. Thus, it would be unjust to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.

Moving party to give notice.