This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2020 at 13:17:31 (UTC).

LATAUSHA HAWLEY VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/19/2018 LATAUSHA HAWLEY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5065

  • Filing Date:

    12/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HAWLEY LATAUSHA

Defendants

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

RAMOS OCTAVIO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

YEAGER KENNETH

PRECIADO ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

4/29/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER

12/31/2019: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER)

1/27/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

1/28/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

8/23/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Opposition to Defendant's Discovery Motion's; Declaration of Kenneth c. Yeager

9/12/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Opposition to Defendant's Discovery Motion's; Declaration of Kenneth c. Yeager

Notice (name extension) - Notice DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION, WITHDRAWING MOTIONS TO COMPEL (x4), WHILE MAINTAINING MOTIONS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (x4)

9/16/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION, WITHDRAWING MOTIONS TO COMPEL (x4), WHILE MAINTAINING MOTIONS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (x4)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/20/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

8/14/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

8/14/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Refund / Order - Request for Refund / Order

5/8/2019: Request for Refund / Order - Request for Refund / Order

Answer - Answer

3/7/2019: Answer - Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

3/8/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/19/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

12/19/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

12/19/2018: Complaint - Complaint

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

12/19/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12/19/2018: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/30/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/30/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/30/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Latausha Hawley on 12/19/2018, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Latausha Hawley as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER scheduled for 01/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 01/27/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER scheduled for 01/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketDue to Clerical Error, Hearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER scheduled for 01/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 01/27/2020 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2020
  • DocketOpposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to pay Monetary Sanctions and for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by: Latausha Hawley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,247.50, AND FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; Filed by: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant); As to: Latausha Hawley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 03/07/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant); As to: Latausha Hawley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Latausha Hawley (Plaintiff); As to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant); Octavio Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Latausha Hawley (Plaintiff); As to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant); Octavio Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Latausha Hawley (Plaintiff); As to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant); Octavio Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC15065    Hearing Date: January 27, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; REQUEST FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 128, 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Comply with Court Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $990.00 within (10) days of this order. However, Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions and Request for Terminating Sanctions are DENIED.

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 14, 2020

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On December 19, 2018, Plaintiff Latusha Hawley (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Octavio Ramos. On March 7, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On August 14, 2019, Defendant filed four Motions to Compel Further Discovery and Request for Sanctions. On September 16, 2019, Defendant withdrew the Motions to Compel Further Discovery, but kept the Request for Sanctions on calendar. On September 19, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the total amount of $990.00. (9/19/19 Minute Order.) Plaintiff was ordered to pay sanctions within 30 days from the date of Defendant serving notice of the order. (Id.) The Court also denied Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions. (Id.)

On December 31, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Comply with Court Order and Request for Monetary Sanctions, and Request for Terminating Sanctions (the “Motion”). On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. To date, Defendant has not filed a reply brief.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Compel Compliance

Courts have the power to “compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(4).)

Here, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant sanctions of $990.00 within 30 days of notice of its order. (9/19/19 Minute Order.) Defendant mailed a Notice of Ruling on September 20, 2019. (Mot., Kreiman Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. 3.) Thus, sanctions must have been paid by October 20, 2019, but Plaintiff failed to do so. (Id., ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the sanctions, but Plaintiff’s counsel was unresponsive. (Id., ¶ 10-12, Exhs. 4, 5.) On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defense counsel via e-mail, in express violation of this Court’s September 19, 2019 Order, that he would address the sanctions “at the conclusion of the case.” (Id., ¶ 13, Exh. 6.) Further, in Plaintiff’s Opposition brief, he does not deny he has not complied with the Court’s order.

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff is in violation of the Court’s September 19, 2019 Order. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $990.00 within ten (10) days of this order.

Defendant also requests that the Court impose additional sanctions of $2,247.50 on Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court’s order. He argues additional sanctions are warranted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), which provides that a misuse of the discovery process incudes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Mot.,. p. 6:6-7.) However, Plaintiff’s failure to pay sanctions is not is not failing to respond to or submit to discovery. Indeed, Plaintiff provided responses to discovery before his initial discovery motions were heard by this Court in December 2019, and sanctions for providing late responses have already been imposed.

Thus, Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.010, subdivision (a) does not authorize additional sanctions.

  1. Terminating 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), § 2031.300, 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 argues that the Court should impose terminating sanctions and dismiss this action because Plaintiff has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery. (Mot., p. 7:4-7.) However, as Defendant concedes and noted above, Plaintiff did provide responses to its discovery requests, albeit only a few days before the Court was scheduled to hear Defendant’s motions to compel. (Id., p. 7: 21-22.) Indeed, Defendant withdrew the motions to compel on December 16, 2019 and only proceeded with a request for sanctions because of Plaintiff’s delayed responses.

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Court’s Order to pay monetary sanctions demonstrates that “no lesser remedy would suffice to change the Plaintiff’s conduct.” (Id., p. 7:27-28, 8:1.) However, “a dismissal can never be an appropriate remedy for an attorney’s noncompliance with an order imposing monetary sanctions.” (Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 759; see also Williams v. Travelers Ins. Co. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 805, 811.)

Thus, terminating sanctions are not warranted here.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Comply with Court Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $990.00 within (10) days of this order. However, Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions and Request for Terminating Sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.