This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 04:24:46 (UTC).

CHRISTIAN FRAZIER PRINCE VS KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/05/2017 CHRISTIAN FRAZIER PRINCE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5673

  • Filing Date:

    01/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PRINCE CHRISTIAN FRAZIER

Defendants and Respondents

DENBESTEN STEVE

DENBESTEN KAYDEN MATTHEW

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BYBERG GREGORY B. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

HAMILTON SUSAN

 

Court Documents

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Judgment

11/16/2018: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Judgment

Unknown

1/7/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

1/7/2019: Minute Order

Demand for Jury Trial

5/16/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

5/16/2019: Answer

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/16/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Kayden Matthew Denbesten (Defendant); Steve Denbesten (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Kayden Matthew Denbesten (Defendant); Steve Denbesten (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)) of 01/07/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate Dismissal; Filed by Christian Frazier Prince (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 7; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-07-05 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 7; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-21 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Christian Frazier Prince (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC645673    Hearing Date: December 27, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

On January 5, 2017, plaintiff Christine Frazier Prince filed this action against defendants Kayden Matthew Denbesten and Steve Denbesten (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages and injuries from a January 9, 2015 motor vehicle collision. On May 16, 2019, Defendants served a Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff. Responses were due on June 20, 2019. Defendants did not receive responses. Defendants then moved to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motions. On October 2, 2019, the Court granted the motions ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Defendants’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production, and to pay monetary sanctions. Defendants served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff on October 7, 2019. Plaintiff did not serve responses or pay the sanctions. Defendants move for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion and did not serve responses to discovery, did not pay monetary sanctions, and disobeyed a court order to do so. Defendants served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of her discovery obligations and , knew of the court order compelling her compliance. Given Plaintiff’s prior failure to comply with discovery obligations, failure to file oppositions to these motions, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds Plaintiff’s conduct is willful and lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s action is dismissed. As the Court is granting terminating sanctions it declines to also impose monetary sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.