On 05/01/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by AMY ALICE KENNEY against FLOWER BUYER in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
*******6807
05/01/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
KENNEY AMY ALICE
BUYER FLOWER
8/21/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE, DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES
10/21/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of continuance of trial date
10/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))
10/21/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
8/20/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER)
8/20/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER
12/18/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
1/9/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment
1/16/2019: Proof of Personal Service - (Amended)
1/18/2019: Answer - Answer
8/16/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF MICHAEL JAVAHERI
12/5/2018: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
6/28/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
5/1/2018: Summons - on Complaint
5/1/2018: Complaint
5/1/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
5/1/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
Hearing05/04/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing03/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion: Filed By: Flower Buyer (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/21/2019
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketNotice of continuance of trial date; Filed by: Flower Buyer (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Flower Buyer (Defendant)
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 10/21/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 10/21/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
DocketPursuant to the request of defendant, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 03/30/2020 08:30 AM
DocketNotice OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE, DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES; Filed by: Flower Buyer (Defendant)
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff); As to: Flower Buyer (Defendant); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff); As to: Flower Buyer (Defendant)
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff)
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/29/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
Case Number: 18STLC06807 Hearing Date: February 13, 2020 Dept: 26
Kenney v. Flower Buyer, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS;
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ADJUDICATION
(CCP § 2023.010; CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Alice Kenney (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and related claims against Defendant Flower Buyer (“Defendant”) on May 1, 2018. On October 21, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Production of Documents, Set One; for Order
Establishing Admissions; and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, dated 10/21/19.) On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on November 21, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.
The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication was initially set to be heard on January 21, 2020, then continued to be heard concurrently with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions. No opposition has been filed regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication.
The hearing on both Motions was initially held on January 22, 2020. At that time, Plaintiff appeared in pro per and the Court continued the hearing at her request to February 4, 2020. No further briefing was ordered, permitted, or filed. On February 4, 2020, the parties appeared intending to orally argue, but there being no judge available, the hearing was continued again to February 13, 2020.
Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions
Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) 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:
(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.
(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.
(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.
(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s action as a terminating sanction for her failure to comply with the Court’s October 2, 2019 order. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $2,055.00.
The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on October 21, 2019 by mail. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/21/19; Motion, Javaheri Decl., ¶8 and Exh. D.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff never served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶¶9-10.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to be a willful failure to comply with the October 21, 2019 order. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, she has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. However, the Court declines to order monetary sanctions as they have been previously awarded and ignored by Plaintiff. An additional order for monetary sanctions, therefore, would be futile.
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication
In light of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
Moving party to give notice.
Case Number: 18STLC06807 Hearing Date: February 04, 2020 Dept: 26
Kenney v. Flower Buyer, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS;
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ADJUDICATION
(CCP § 2023.010; CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Alice Kenney (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and related claims against Defendant Flower Buyer (“Defendant”) on May 1, 2018. On October 21, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Production of Documents, Set One; for Order
Establishing Admissions; and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, dated 10/21/19.) On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on November 21, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.
The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication was initially set to be heard on January 21, 2020, then continued to be heard concurrently with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions. That motion is also unopposed.
The hearing on both motions was initially held on January 22, 2020. At that time, Plaintiff appeared in pro per and the Court continued the hearing at her request. No further briefing was ordered, permitted, or filed.
Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions
Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) 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:
(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.
(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.
(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.
(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s action as a terminating sanction for her failure to comply with the Court’s October 2, 2019 order. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $2,055.00.
The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on October 21, 2019 by mail. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/21/19; Motion, Javaheri Decl., ¶8 and Exh. D.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff never served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶¶9-10.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to be a willful failure to comply with the October 21, 2019 order. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, she has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. However, the Court declines to order monetary sanctions as they have been previously awarded and ignored by Plaintiff. An additional order for monetary sanctions, therefore, would be futile.
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication
In light of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
Moving party to give notice.
Case Number: 18STLC06807 Hearing Date: January 22, 2020 Dept: 26
Kenney v. Flower Buyer, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS;
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ADJUDICATION
(CCP § 2023.010; CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Alice Kenney (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and related claims against Defendant Flower Buyer (“Defendant”) on May 1, 2018. On October 21, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Production of Documents, Set One; for Order
Establishing Admissions; and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, dated 10/21/19.) On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on November 21, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.
The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication was initially set to be heard on January 21, 2020, then continued to be heard concurrently with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions. That motion is also unopposed.
Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions
Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) 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:
(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.
(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.
(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.
(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s action as a terminating sanction for her failure to comply with the Court’s October 2, 2019 order. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $2,055.00.
The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on October 21, 2019 by mail. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/21/19; Motion, Javaheri Decl., ¶8 and Exh. D.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff never served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶¶9-10.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to be a willful failure to comply with the October 21, 2019 order. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, she has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. However, the Court declines to order monetary sanctions as they have been previously awarded and ignored by Plaintiff. An additional order for monetary sanctions, therefore, would be futile.
Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication
In light of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
Moving party to give notice.