This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/19/2020 at 07:50:28 (UTC).

ROSA RUIZ VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 05/20/2019 ROSA RUIZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION. 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:

    *******4807

  • Filing Date:

    05/20/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RUIZ ROSA

Defendant

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

MIRETSKY MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer

9/30/2019: Answer - Answer

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ruiz' Responses to Costco's Request for Production of Documents Set One and Request for Sanctions

2/11/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ruiz' Responses to Costco's Request for Production of Documents Set One and Request for Sanctions

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ruiz' Responses to Costco's Form Interrogatories Set 1 and Request for Sanctions

2/11/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ruiz' Responses to Costco's Form Interrogatories Set 1 and Request for Sanctions

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Testimony and Records Deposition of Plaintiff Ruiz by Costco and Request for Sanctions

2/11/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Testimony and Records Deposition of Plaintiff Ruiz by Costco and Request for Sanctions

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Production; Hearing on Motion to ...)

3/11/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Production; Hearing on Motion to ...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/12/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

5/8/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

5/11/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 05/11/2020

5/11/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 05/11/2020

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

5/18/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

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

8/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

8/10/2020: Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/18/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Summons - Summons on Complaint

5/20/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

5/20/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/20/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/20/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

5/20/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Rosa Ruiz on 05/20/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/10/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/23/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/10/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:2045747 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:2045748 resulted in empty message

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • DocketNotice OF HEARING ON COSTCO'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; Filed by: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant); As to: Rosa Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
18 More Docket Entries
  • 02/11/2020
  • DocketMotion to Compel Testimony and Records Deposition of Plaintiff Ruiz by Costco and Request for Sanctions; Filed by: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant); As to: Rosa Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant); As to: Rosa Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Rosa Ruiz (Plaintiff); As to: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Rosa Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/16/2020 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 05/23/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04807    Hearing Date: August 10, 2020    Dept: 26

Ruiz v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF ROSA RUIZ’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff in pro per Rosa Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for premises liability against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”). On March 11, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and responses to written discovery. (Minute Order, 3/11/20.) Plaintiff was ordered to appear for deposition on March 20, 2020 and serve responses to discovery within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) Plaintiff was further ordered to pay sanctions of $1,574.30 to defense counsel within 30 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order, accordingly, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions. (Id. at ¶¶15-18 and Exh. E.)

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 the deposition, written discovery requests and sanctions, Defendant served notice of the order on Plaintiff by mail. (Motion, Blake Decl., ¶12 and Exh. B.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff did not comply nor contact defense counsel. (Id. at ¶19 and Exh. F.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to failure to comply with the Court’s March 11, 2020 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 Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF ROSA RUIZ’ COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04807    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 26

Ruiz v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

COMPEL DEPOSITION; COMPEL RESPONSES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2025.450, 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion to Compel Deposition of the Plaintiff, Rosa Ruiz, and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT THE LAW OFFICES OF LEIBL, MIRETSKY & MOSELY, LLP, 5014 CHESEBRO ROAD, AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA ON MARCH 20, 2020 AT 10:00 AM. SANCTIONS OF $1,164.30 ARE TO BE PAID TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Form Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $410.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff in pro per Rosa Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for premises liability against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”). On February 11, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion to Compel Deposition”); (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Motion to Compel Deposition

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff failed to appear for her properly noticed deposition on December 6, 2019. (Motion, Blake Decl., ¶¶5-8 and Exhs. A-C.) Despite Defendant’s attempts to confirm that Plaintiff would appear, in both English and Spanish, Plaintiff did not indicate that she would fail to appear or that the deposition should be rescheduled. (Ibid.) Following Plaintiff’s failure to appear, Defendant sent her a meet and confer letter seeking alternative deposition dates and advising that Court intervention might be sought. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. D.) This satisfies the statute’s meet and confer requirement. Plaintiff, however, has not cooperated to reschedule the deposition nor filed an opposition to the instant Motion to Compel Deposition. (Ibid.)

Sanctions are warranted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.030, subdivision (d) and section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1,) and have been properly noticed. However, the Court finds the amount sought is excessive. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $1,164.30 based on the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing this motion. (Motion, Blake Decl., ¶12.) Specifically, one hour of attorney time billed at $175.00 per hour, $514.30 for court reporter costs, $475 for interpreter costs, and $60.00 for the filing fee. (Ibid.)

Based on the Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the properly noticed deposition and continuing lack of cooperation in rescheduling, the Motion to Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT THE LAW OFFICES OF LEIBL, MIRETSKY & MOSELY, LLP, 5014 CHESEBRO ROAD, AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA ON MARCH 20, 2020 AT 10:00 AM. SANCTIONS OF $1,164.30 ARE TO BE PAID TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Motions to Compel Discovery Responses

Defendant presents evidence that it served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by mail on October 18, 2019. (Motions, Blake Decl. ¶5 and Exh. A.) Responses were due by November 22, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.250.) Despite defense counsel sending a meet and confer letter, to date, Plaintiff has not served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶¶6-8 and Exh. B.)

The failure to timely serve responses, whether containing objections, or facts, or both, results in waiver of all objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.) Based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery requests, Defendant is entitled to verified responses without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production within twenty (20) days of notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.) Sanctions have been properly noticed and are appropriate in the amount of $410.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $175.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Motion, Blake Decl., ¶12.)

Therefore, Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Form Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $410.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.