This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:13:41 (UTC).

ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/02/2017 ELIZABETH TAYLOR filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against ALKIVIADES DAVID. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ANN I. JONES. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9025

  • Filing Date:

    02/02/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ANN I. JONES

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

TAYLOR ELIZABETH

JONES CHASITY

ROES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE

CLEAVER GEORGE SAMUEL

NAMED ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP NOT

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

HOLOGRAM USA ENTERTAINMENT INC

FILMON.TV NETWORKS INC

FILMON MEDIA HOLDINGS INC

FILMON.TV INC

ALKI DAVID PRODUCTIONS INC

HOLOGRAM USA INC

DAVID ALKIVIADES

DOES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE

ANAKANDO MEDIA GROUP USA

FILMON.TV NETWORKS INC.

ALKI DAVID PRODUCTIONS INC.

FILMON MEDIA HOLDINGS INC.

HOLOGRAM USA ENTERTAINMENT INC.

FILMON.TV INC.

FILMON.TV UK LIMITED

Cross Defendant and Not Classified By Court

CLEAVER GEORGE SAMUEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BLOOM LISA ESQ

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

ROTHMAN BARRY K. ESQ.

GAROFALO ELLYN S ESQ.

KALTGRAD AMIR

Not Classified By Court Attorney

YEE STEVEN R. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Motion in Limine

7/19/2019: Motion in Limine

Request for Judicial Notice

7/25/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition

7/30/2019: Opposition

Declaration

7/31/2019: Declaration

Reply

8/5/2019: Reply

Legacy Document

1/25/2018: Legacy Document

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO ALKIVIADES DAVID'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPULSORY CROSS-COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF ALAN GOLDSTEIN

2/27/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO ALKIVIADES DAVID'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPULSORY CROSS-COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF ALAN GOLDSTEIN

Declaration

2/14/2019: Declaration

Opposition

3/13/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

3/22/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

3/26/2019: Declaration

Ex Parte Application

4/2/2019: Ex Parte Application

Certificate of Mailing for

5/28/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Notice

5/31/2019: Notice

Certificate of Mailing for

6/6/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

8/11/2017: STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION- SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC.

9/14/2017: PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION- SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC.

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL MARY RIZZO'S TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT ORAL DEPOSITION; DECLARATION OF ALAN GOLDSTEIN

10/3/2017: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL MARY RIZZO'S TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT ORAL DEPOSITION; DECLARATION OF ALAN GOLDSTEIN

472 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/31/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 73 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Order (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 11 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 73 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
785 More Docket Entries
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Alkiviades David (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Alkiviades David (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Elizabeth Taylor (Plaintiff); Chasity Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketAMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Chasity Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC649025    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 73

8/26/2020

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

ELIZABETH TAYLOR, et al. v. ALKIVIADES DAVID, et al.  (BC649025)

Counsel for plaintiff/opposing party Elizabeth Taylor: Lisa Bloom; Alan Goldstein (The Bloom Firm)

Counsel for entity defendants/moving parties Hologram USA, Inc., et al.: Ellyn Garofalo; Amir Kaltgrad (Venable)

Counsel for defendant Alkiviades David/joining party re anti-SLAPP: None (self-represented)

matters:

DeFendants’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF TAYLOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT (filed 4/6/2020); defendant david’s joinder thereto (FILED 4/7/2020)

DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT (filed 4/6/2020)

TENTATIVE RULINGS

Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion: NO TENTATIVE AT THIS TIME. HEAR ARGUMENT.

Defendant David’s joinder to the entity defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is granted.

Defendants’ evidentiary objections to Taylor declaration: rulings deferred.

Demurring defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.

The demurrer of defendants FilmOn Media Holdings, Inc.; FilmOn.TV Networks, Inc., Alki David Productions, Inc., and Anakando Media Group USA to the sixth cause of action in the supplemental complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to these demurring defendants only. The court will inquire about dismissals of all other defendants except David and the Hologram entities.

Discussion

Taylor’s Supplemental Complaint

Plaintiff Taylor’s supplemental complaint (filed 2/21/20), alleges that Defendants persisted in retaliatory and abusive conduct against her after she filed her original complaint on 2/2/17. The supplemental complaint adds post-complaint facts to Taylor’s Sixth Cause of Action (Retaliation in Violation of FEHA) and Eleventh Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress).

Anti-SLAPP Motion

On April 6, 2020 entity Defendants Hologram USA, Inc., Filmon Media Holdings, Inc., Filmon.TV Networks, Inc., Alki David Productions, Inc., and Anakando Media Group USA filed a special motion to strike Taylor’s supplemental complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. On April 7, 2020 Defendant Alkiviades David filed a joinder to the motion. On April 29, 2020 Taylor filed an opposition. On May 5, 2020, Defendants filed a reply and evidentiary objections to Taylor’s declaration.

The court defers any further discussion of the anti-SLAPP motion at this time.

Demurrer

On April 6, 2020 four entity Defendants--FilmOn Media Holdings, Inc., Filmon.TV Networks, Inc., Alki David Productions, Inc., and Anakando Media Group USA (the “Dismissed Defendants”)-- demur to the sixth cause of action in the Taylor’s supplemental complaint on the grounds that they were all previously dismissed with prejudice from this action, which now precludes Plaintiff from pursuing any claims against them in her Supplemental Complaint. On May 1, 2020 Plaintiff filed an opposition. On May 7, 2020 the Dismissed Defendants filed a reply.

ANALYSIS—DEMURRER

The only issue on demurrer is whether or not Plaintiff can assert the sixth cause of action in the supplemental complaint against the Dismissed Defendants. The Dismissed Defendants argue no—a dismissal with prejudice acts as a final judgment on the merits, which precludes Plaintiff from pursuing these claims against them. Plaintiff argues that a new trial is similar to a retrial and, therefore, Plaintiff can relitigate these claims against the Dismissed Defendants. The court agrees with the Dismissed Defendants.

On August 27, 2019, during the Taylor trial, the court issued a minute order that stated, among other things:

Defendants' objections to the production of documents relating to Filmon.TV Networks, Inc. and Filmon Media Holdings, Inc. on the grounds that these parties have been dismissed with prejudice are SUSTAINED and all document requests relating to those parties are DENIED on relevance grounds.

The following trial day, on August 28, 2019, the court issued a minute order that stated, among other things:

OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE TWO JURORS AND ALKIVIADES DAVID:

Defendants' motion for non-suit is heard, argued and granted as to Alki David Productions, Inc., Anakando Media Group USA and FOTV Media Networks Inc.

The Court orders Alki David Productions, Inc., Anakando Media Group, USA and FOTV Media Networks Inc. in Complaint filed by ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL on 02/02/2017 dismissed with prejudice. (Emphasis added.)

On the final trial day, on August 29, 2019, the parties stipulated that “the only remaining defendants at issue are Alkiviades David, Hologram USA, Inc. and Hologram USA Entertainment, Inc…”

There is no dispute between the parties that during trial proceedings all of the Dismissed Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. As a matter of law, a dismissal with prejudice is equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring re-litigation of the cause of action under res judicata/collateral estoppel principles. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 788, 793 (“The statutory term ‘with prejudice’ clearly means the plaintiff's right of action is terminated and may not be revived.... [A] dismissal with prejudice ... bars any future action on the same subject matter.”); Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 813, 820) (“A retraxit is equivalent to a judgment on the merits and as such bars further litigation on the same subject matter between the parties”).

Because Plaintiff previously dismissed the Dismissed Defendants with prejudice, or so stipulated, and dismissals were ordered by the court, those dismissals act as a judgment on the merits barring re-litigation of the same claims against the Dismissed Defendants. Those dismissals have not been overturned, vacated, reversed, or nullified by motion or on appeal. Plaintiff, therefore, is barred from re-litigating the same sixth cause of action against the Dismissed Defendants.

Each of Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition fail:

First, Plaintiff attempts to liken a dismissal with prejudice to a new trial. Plaintiff has not cited one case that holds that the effect of a dismissal with prejudice is like a new trial and/or that a mistrial somehow vacates or nullifies the effect of a dismissal with prejudice. Instead, each of the cases that Plaintiff cites either involves a trial court’s grant of a motion for a new trial and or a reversal of a judgment after an appeal. While the effect of a new trial and/or a reversal of a judgment on appeal is to vacate the effect a prior judgment, no such legal order is in effect that vacates or nullifies the dismissals with prejudice. Plaintiff has not identified one proceeding or order that has the effect of vacating the dismissals, let alone cite any authority that so holds.

Second, Plaintiff argues that the Dismissed Defendants only demurred to the sixth cause of action, so, “at the very least,” Taylor’s supplemental eleventh cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress “remains operative as to all Defendants,” including the Dismissed Defendants. As the Dismissed Defendants correctly point out, however, Plaintiff’s argument ignores Plaintiff’s own pleadings. In both the complaint and the supplemental complaint, Plaintiff only alleges the eleventh cause of action for IIED against David—not the Dismissing Defendants. The Dismissed Defendants need not demur against a cause of action that was not alleged against them.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the supplemental complaint alleges new claims. The supplemental complaint merely adds additional allegations to provide context to Plaintiff’s primary right claim against viable defendants—a claim for retaliation under FEHA. Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint for retaliation does not allege a separate claim or a separate wrong that would resurrect her claims against otherwise dismissed parties. Plaintiff’s additional allegations merely add further circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive.

Given the earlier dismissals with prejudice against the Dismissed Defendants, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to such Defendants.

Case Number: BC649025    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 73

2/19/20

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

ELIZABETH TAYLOR, et al. v. ALKIVIADES DAVID, et al. (BC649025)

Counsel for plaintiff Elizabeth Taylor (moving party): Lisa Bloom; Alan Goldstein (The Bloom Firm)

Counsel for defendant Alkiviades David: None (self-represented)

Counsel for defendants Hologram USA, Inc., et al. (opposing): Ellyn Garofalo; Amir Kaltgrad (Venable)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (filed 1/22/20)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint is GRANTED, with one condition, noted below. The proposed pleading filed as Exhibit A to the Goldstein moving declaration is deemed served this date on all parties who were served with the motion. Such parties’ responsive pleading shall be filed and served within 15 days unless the parties stipulate that the answers on file shall be deemed the responsive pleading. Plaintiff is ordered to file a stand-alone original of the supplemental complaint forthwith.

Because this change in the pleadings comes less than three months before trial, the court conditions the grant of this motion on the court’s vacating the current trial date (5/11/20), unless all parties confirm at this hearing that they will be ready for trial on that date without any delays. Should the trial date be vacated, the court will set a trial setting conference and set a trial date consistent with the time remaining to commence the re-trial. The parties shall meet and confer and advise the court of the stipulated last day within which the re-trial must commence.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Notice of ruling by Plaintiff.

Case Number: BC649025    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 73

1/22/20

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

ELIZABETH TAYLOR, et al. v. ALKIVIADES DAVID, et al. (BC649025)

Counsel for plaintiff Elizabeth Taylor (moving party): Lisa Bloom; Alan Goldstein (The Bloom Firm)

Counsel for defendant/cross-complainant Alkiviades David (opposing): None (self-represented) Counsel for defendants Hologram USA, et al. (opposing): Ellyn Garofalo; Amir Kaltgrad (Venable)

PLAINTIFF TAYLOR’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (filed 12/24/19)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Defendants’ objections and motion to strike portions of declarations and the RJN is DENIED.

Defendant David’s joinder to codefendants’ opposition is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Discussion

Before the court is Plaintiff Taylor’s motion for terminating sanctions and request for judicial notice. Defendants Hologram USA Inc, Hologram USA Entertain Inc, and FilmOn.TV Inc. (Entity Defendants) filed an opposition. Defendant David filed a joinder notice to the opposition. Plaintiff filed a reply.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128, 575.2, and 2023.030, Plaintiff Taylor moves for terminating sanctions against David for his egregious and deliberate misconduct at both trials in this action, his violation of local court rules, his repeated discovery abuses, and his continued refusal to pay discovery sanctions awards and attorneys’ fee award. Plaintiff asks the court to dismiss David’s answer and enter his default.

In opposition, the Entity Defendants argue Plaintiff is essentially seeking a reconsideration of her April 23, 2019 motion for terminating sanctions and other prior sanctions order. Defendant requests $19,785 in fees incurred in connection with opposing Plaintiff’s improper motion for reconsideration.

ANALYSIS

Entity Defendants’ Standing / David’s Joinder

As to law and motion proceedings, litigants must assert their own rights, rather those of third parties, except where: “(1) the litigant suffers a distinct and palpable injury in fact, thus giving him or her a concrete interest in the outcome of the dispute; (2) the litigant has a close relationship to the third party such that the two share a common interest; and (3) there is some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests.” (Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 872, 877, 881; see also Chen v. Superior Court (2004). 118 Cal.App.4th 761, 775 [stating “a party who can legitimately and individually claim a ‘beneficial interest’ in the subject matter” has standing to oppose].)

Here, Plaintiff argues the Entity Defendants do not have standing to bring an opposition. However, Plaintiff’s request for the court to strike David’s answer and enter default will necessarily impact the entity Defendants. The Entity Defendants have a close relationship to David such that the entities and David share a common interest. And, because David is currently self-represented, there is some hindrance in his ability to file an opposition like the represented entities. As such, the court concludes that the entity Defendants have standing to oppose Plaintiff’s motion.[1]

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Is Denied

Plaintiff’s Motion Is Not for Reconsideration

While Plaintiffs Jones and Taylor filed a motion for terminating sanctions on April 23, 2019, that motion was for sanctions against all Defendants. Here, in contrast, Plaintiff Taylor moves for terminating sanctions against only Defendant David. As such, this is not a motion for reconsideration of the prior terminating sanction motion.

Entity Defendants’ request for $19,785 in attorney fees is DENIED.

Sanctions Under CCP § 128 (Court’s Inherent Authority)

Every court has statutory power to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence (Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a)(1)), to enforce order in the proceedings before it or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority (id., § 128(a)(2)), to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it or its officers (id., § 128(a)(3)), and to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein (id., § 128(a)(4)).

In Taylor’s trial, before whom another judge presided, the court there (Judge Christopher Lui) imposed both monetary and evidentiary sanctions against David by reducing David’s time in examining witnesses, etc. Plaintiff now argues terminating sanctions are warranted because of David’s egregious misconduct in the Taylor trial, as well as misconduct in other trials (Jones, Reeves, and Khan trials) before other judges. However, Plaintiff does not cite any authority that permits this court to sanction David based on his conduct in other trials before different judicial officers. The lack of such authority is not surprising.

Sanctions are not warranted under Code of Civil Procedure § 128.

Sanctions Under CCP § 575.2 (Non-Compliance with Local Rules)

“Although authorized to impose sanctions for violation of local rules [], courts ordinarily should avoid treating a curable violation of local procedural rules as the basis for crippling a litigant's ability to present his or her case.” (Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 1364; see also Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1161 [“An order based upon a curable procedural defect (such as the failure to file a separate statement), which effectively results in a judgment against a party, is an abuse of discretion.”].)

Plaintiff argues sanctions are warranted under Code of Civil Procedure section 575.2(a) because David violated Local Rules 3.120 (policy against indication as to testimony) and 3.130 (communication to jurors). However, Plaintiff fails to recognize that, in response to David’s violation of those local rules, the trial court exercised its discretion and issued both monetary and evidentiary sanctions by reducing David’s time to examine witnesses, present evidence, and argue.

Sanctions are not warranted under Code of Civil Procedure § 575.2.

Sanctions Under CCP § 2023.030 (Discovery)

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(d).) Generally, less drastic sanctions are imposed first. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444).

Further, discovery sanctions “cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery” (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613) and may not be used as punishment (Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331-332). “In other words, discovery sanctions exist ‘not to provide a weapon for punishment for past violations or penalty for past conduct but to secure compliance with orders of the court.’ ” (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1183.)

Here, Plaintiff has not established a violation of a discovery order that might justify more severe discovery sanctions than the previously imposed monetary sanctions or the pervasive discovery conduct necessary to justify terminating sanctions. The evidence presented demonstrates that Plaintiff complied with the court’s orders to appear for his deposition, supplement his discovery responses, and produce additional documents. Plaintiff also fails to cite any authority that permits terminating sanctions for failure to pay sanctions or a fee award. As Defendants properly cite, Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5 provides Plaintiff with a remedy for Defendant’s failure to pay sanctions.

Sanctions are not warranted under Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030.

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Unless waived, notice of ruling by entity defendants.


[1] The result would be the same even if Defendants somehow lacked standing.