This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/12/2019 at 01:35:35 (UTC).

EDUARDO SALAZAR ET AL VS TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC ET A

Case Summary

On 04/24/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability case was filed by EDUARDO SALAZAR against TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC ET A in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3222

  • Filing Date:

    04/24/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem

SALAZAR EDUARDO

Petitioner

SALAZAR PATRICIA

Respondents and Defendants

TOYOTA OF DOWNTOWN L.A.

TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC.

DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

Minors

SALAZAR GABRIELA

SALAZAR TATIANA

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

6/6/2018: Proof of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6/8/2018: DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/26/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

8/2/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

8/2/2018: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT HILLAND MOTORS OF LOS ANGELES, INC., DBA TOYOTA OF DOWNTOWN LA "ERRONEOUSLY SUED AND SERVED AS TOYOTA DOWNTOWN L.A., AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY")

8/16/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT HILLAND MOTORS OF LOS ANGELES, INC., DBA TOYOTA OF DOWNTOWN LA "ERRONEOUSLY SUED AND SERVED AS TOYOTA DOWNTOWN L.A., AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY")

Legacy Document

9/21/2018: Legacy Document

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

10/2/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE RE: ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

10/2/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE RE: ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

Substitution of Attorney

11/28/2018: Substitution of Attorney

COMPLAINT

4/24/2018: COMPLAINT

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/28/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney (Civil (Without Court Order)); Filed by Laurie D. Rau, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE RE: ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Toyota of Downtown L.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2018
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT HILLAND MOTORS OF LOS ANGELES, INC., DBA TOYOTA OF DOWNTOWN LA "ERRONEOUSLY SUED AND SERVED AS TOYOTA DOWNTOWN L.A., AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Toyota of Downtown L.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 07/26/2018
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Eduardo Salazar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Eduardo Salazar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Eduardo Salazar (Plaintiff); Patricia Salazar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Eduardo Salazar (Plaintiff); Patricia Salazar (Plaintiff); Tatiana Salazar (Legacy Party) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC703222    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 4A

Motion for Terminating Sanctions 

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Eduardo Salazar; Patricia Salazar; Tatiana Salazar, by and through her guardian ad litem, Eduardo Salazar; Gabriela Salazar, by and through her guardian ad litem, Eduardo Salazar; and Sofia Salazar, by and through her guardian ad litem, Eduardo Salazar, (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Hilland Motors of Los Angeles, LLC (erroneously sued and served as Toyota of Downtown, L.A) (“Defendants”).  The complaint alleges negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and strict products liability for the failing of Plaintiffs’ brakes in Defendants’ leased vehicle on July 6, 2017. 

On July 26, 2018, the Court entered default against Toyota of Downtown L.A.  

On October 31, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. 

On November 25, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions to January 8, 2020 for the parties to meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery. 

Trial is set for February 21, 2020. 

PARTIES’ REQUEST 

Defendants ask the Court to impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs for failing to respond to discovery, serving untimely responses to discovery, oppose motions, appear for hearings at motions, and failing to abide by the Court’s orders. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .”  California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. . . .” 

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  (Los Defensores, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citing Langsupra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 (discussing cases)); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).) 

A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction.  (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.)  Rather, a monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 680.010, et seq.  (Id. at p. 615.) 

DISCUSSION 

On August 13, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to appear for depositions and produce documents responsive to a request for production within a deposition notice within 20 days and to pay sanctions within 30 days.  (Tabak Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.)  Plaintiffs have not appeared for depositions, produced responsive documents, or paid the outstanding sanctions in relation to the August 13, 2019 Court order.  (Tabak Decl., ¶ 6.)  On August 23, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 30 days and to pay sanctions.  (Tabak Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Plaintiffs have not served the outstanding responses or paid the outstanding sanctions in relation to the August 23, 2019 Court order.  (Ibid.)  On October 24, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay sanctions within 30 days. 

On November 25, 2019, the Court afforded Plaintiffs one more opportunity to remedy their failure to produce discovery and appear at depositions before the Court issued terminating sanctions.  There is no evidence that Plaintiffs have complied with their discovery obligations.  Rather, the evidence before the Court shows that Plaintiffs has a habit of disobeying Court orders compelling compliance with discovery obligations.  As such, terminating sanctions are proper. 

The motion is GRANTED. 

The complaint is STRICKEN and Defendants are DISMISSED. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Case Number: BC703222    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Eduardo Salazar; Patricia Salazar; Tatiana Salazar, by and through her guardian ad litem, Eduardo Salazar; Gabriela Salazar, by and through her guardian ad litem, Eduardo Salazar; and Sofia Salazar, by and through her guardian ad litem, Eduardo Salazar, (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Hilland Motors of Los Angeles, LLC (erroneously sued and served as Toyota of Downtown, L.A) (“Defendants”).  The complaint alleges negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and strict products liability for the failing of Plaintiffs’ brakes in Defendants’ leased vehicle on July 6, 2017.

On July 26, 2018, the Court entered default against Toyota of Downtown L.A. 

On October 31, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

Trial is set for February 21, 2020.

PARTIES REQUEST

Defendants ask the Court to impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs for failing to respond to discovery, serving untimely responses to discovery, failing to oppose motions, not appearing for hearings on motions, and failing to abide by the Court’s orders.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .” California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. . . .

A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction.  (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.)  Rather, a monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 680.010, et seq. Id. at p. 615.)

DISCUSSION

On August 13, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to appear for depositions and produce documents responsive to a request for production within a deposition notice within 20 days and to pay sanctions within 30 days.  (Tabak Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.)  Plaintiffs have not appeared for depositions, produced responsive documents, or paid the outstanding sanctions in relation to the August 13, 2019 Court order.  (Tabak Decl., ¶ 6.)  On August 23, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 30 days and to pay sanctions.  (Tabak Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Plaintiffs have not served the outstanding responses or paid the outstanding sanctions in relation to the August 23, 2019 Court order.  (Ibid.)  On October 24, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay sanctions within 30 days.

The Court finds terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this time.  The Court cannot issue terminating sanctions for failing to pay monetary sanctions.  (Newland, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 610, 615.)  The record shows that Plaintiffs recently provided verified responses to requests for admission in an effort to avert a finding that the matters set forth in the admission requests are true as against Plaintiffs.  Thus, it cannot be said that Plaintiffs have completely failed to comply with their discovery obligations. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs should have one more opportunity to remedy their failure to produce discovery and appear at depositions before the Court imposes the ultimate sanction of dismissal of this action.  Accordingly, the Court orders defense counsel to set up an in-person or telephonic conference with Plaintiffs’ counsel to schedule Plaintiffs’ depositions, review outstanding discovery and schedule dates for the service of verified answers to all outstanding discovery propounded to Plaintiffs.  This meet and confer session must occur by December 6, 2019, with Plaintiffs’ depositions and all written discovery responses to be served with verifications by Plaintiffs no later than December 30, 2019.  The Court admonishes Plaintiffs that in the event they cannot demonstrate compliance with the Court’s order, their case may be dismissed because of their failure to meet their discovery obligations and comply with the court orders. 

The hearing on this motion is CONTINUED to January 8, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. for a review of Plaintiffs’ compliance.  Both sides are to submit a declaration by January 3, 2020 reporting on the status of Plaintiffs’ compliance with the court’s discovery orders.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.