KC JEWELRY INC VS DESIGNS OF ELEGANCE LLC

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC00993    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 94

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Plaintiff KC Jewelry, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating, Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions Against Defendant / Cross-Complaint William Anderson is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO EVIDENTIARY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY STRIKES DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S ANSWER AND DISMISSES THE CROSS-COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff KC Jewelry, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Designs of Elegance, LLC, William Anderson (“Defendant Anderson”) and Susan Yeager on January 18, 2018. On March 14, 2018, Defendant Anderson filed a Cross-Complaint for account stated and conversion against Plaintiff.

On February 19, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Defendant Anderson’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production. (Minute Order, dated 2/19/19.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on July 10, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

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).)

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding Defendant Anderson’s discovery, Plaintiff served notice of the order. (Notice of Ruling, filed 5/28/19.) Despite the Court’s order, Defendant Anderson never served responses to the discovery requests. (Motion, Tabibi Decl., ¶4.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds this to be a willful failure to comply with the February 19, 2019 order. Furthermore, although Defendant Anderson was properly served with the instant Motion for Sanctions, he has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Defendant Anderson’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions.

Plaintiff KC Jewelry, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating, Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions Against Defendant / Cross-Complaint William Anderson is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO EVIDENTIARY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY STRIKES DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S ANSWER AND DISMISSES THE CROSS-COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.