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.
****5673
01/05/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
PRINCE CHRISTIAN FRAZIER
DENBESTEN STEVE
DENBESTEN KAYDEN MATTHEW
DOES 1 TO 25
BYBERG GREGORY B. ESQ.
HAMILTON SUSAN
11/16/2018: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Judgment
1/7/2019: Unknown
1/7/2019: Minute Order
5/16/2019: Demand for Jury Trial
5/16/2019: Answer
Answer; Filed by Kayden Matthew Denbesten (Defendant); Steve Denbesten (Defendant)
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Kayden Matthew Denbesten (Defendant); Steve Denbesten (Defendant)
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
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)) of 01/07/2019); Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5))); Filed by Clerk
Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate Dismissal; Filed by Christian Frazier Prince (Plaintiff)
at 08:30 AM in Department 7; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Order of Dismissal) -
Minute order entered: 2018-07-05 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
Minute Order
at 10:00 AM in Department 7; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -
Minute Order
Minute order entered: 2018-06-21 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
SUMMONS
Complaint; Filed by Christian Frazier Prince (Plaintiff)
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
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.