Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644266    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Defendants Jacquelyn Dehaven, Rebecca Dehaven, and Matthew Dehaven (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff”) for failure to prosecute. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410, the court may dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if the plaintiff does not serve the defendant within two years, or bring the action to trial within three years.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.410, 583.420.) Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, “A party seeking dismissal of a case under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410-583.430 must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, subd. (a).) Defendants filed this motion on February 13, 2020, which is only 27 days before the hearing date. Plaintiff objects to consideration of the motion on this basis. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: March 11, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC644266    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Ryan Rocco and SBR Construction, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Duck Jin Choi (“Plaintiff”) as a terminating sanction, which Plaintiff opposes. The Court continues the motion to December 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition by that date, the Court intends to grant the motion and dismiss this case.

Legal Standard

The Court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

Discussion

In its order of August 30, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents that Defendants served on Plaintiff within twenty (20) days of notice of the order. Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on September 14, 2019. Plaintiff thus had until October 9, 2019 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. In his opposition, dated October 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that verified responses have not been provided.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition in compliance with this Court’s order of June 7, 2019. In connection with granting Plaintiff’s request to continue trial, the Court ordered that the depositions of the parties occur prior to August 1, 2019. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not yet sat for deposition. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric S. Chun (“Counsel”), states that Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition because “he has been traveling back and forth between California and South Korea” for work. (Declaration of Eric S. Chun, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff cannot indefinitely delay his obligation to sit for deposition because his work requires him to travel. More important, by Counsel’s admission, Plaintiff is in California at times. Thus, Plaintiff must provide a date certain on which Plaintiff will sit for deposition. Otherwise, the Court will find Plaintiff has willfully violated this Court’s order, and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is continued to December 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition, the Court intends to grant this motion and dismiss the case. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: November 7, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC644266    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Ryan Rocco and SBR Construction, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Duck Jin Choi (“Plaintiff”) as a terminating sanction, which Plaintiff opposes. The Court continues the motion to December 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition by that date, the Court intends to grant the motion and dismiss this case.

Legal Standard

The Court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

Discussion

In its order of August 30, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents that Defendants served on Plaintiff within twenty (20) days of notice of the order. Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on September 14, 2019. Plaintiff thus had until October 9, 2019 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. In his opposition, dated October 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that verified responses have not been provided.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition in compliance with this Court’s order of June 7, 2019. In connection with granting Plaintiff’s request to continue trial, the Court ordered that the depositions of the parties occur prior to August 1, 2019. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not yet sat for deposition. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric S. Chun (“Counsel”), states that Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition because “he has been traveling back and forth between California and South Korea” for work. (Declaration of Eric S. Chun, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff cannot indefinitely delay his obligation to sit for deposition because his work requires him to travel. More important, by Counsel’s admission, Plaintiff is in California at times. Thus, Plaintiff must provide a date certain on which Plaintiff will sit for deposition. Otherwise, the Court will find Plaintiff has willfully violated this Court’s order, and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is continued to December 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition, the Court intends to grant this motion and dismiss the case. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: November 7, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court