This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 04:47:29 (UTC).

IGNAT STEPANENKO VS JOHN ROE DDS ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/21/2017 IGNAT STEPANENKO filed an Other lawsuit against JOHN ROE DDS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7212

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STEPANENKO IGNAT

Defendants

ROE DDS; JOHN

A TO Z DENTAL CLINIC

 

Court Documents

Complaint

12/21/2017: Complaint

Summons

12/21/2017: Summons

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/21/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

CoverSheet

12/21/2017: CoverSheet

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Ignat Stepanenko (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ignat Stepanenko (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7212    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

IGNAT STEPANENKO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOHN ROE, DDS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****7212

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

December 2, 2020

1. Background

Plaintiff, Ignat Stepanenko filed this action against Defendants, John Roe, DDS and A to Z Dental Clinic (“Defendant”) for dental malpractice and negligence.

2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice because of Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process by failing to comply with two court orders issued on 2/24/20 and 9/22/20, respectively. The 2/24/20 Order required Plaintiff to serve further responses to written discovery and pay sanctions, but Plaintiff has done neither. Additionally, the 9/22/20 Order compelled Plaintiff to appear for his deposition on 10/8/20, but Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition and has failed to comply with the order.

Code of Civil Procedure ; 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.030(d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.)

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.) "A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction." (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions "should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery." (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Ibid.) Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971].)

Here, Defendant submits evidence showing Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s prior orders, discovery requests, and that Plaintiff failed to comply with the previously imposed monetary sanctions. Moreover, Defendant cannot meaningfully prepare for trial without Plaintiff’s deposition. Furthermore, a brief review of the prior motion reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the crux of Plaintiff’s claim, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time. Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted.

Plaintiff’s case against moving Defendant is dismissed.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 2nd day of December, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****7212    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

IGNAT STEPANENKO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOHN ROE, DDS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: ****7212

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

September 22, 2020

Defendant, A to Z Dental Clinic moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant asserts she noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for 3/6/20, and despite attempting to meet and confer, Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition. After failing to appear, Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff as to why Plaintiff failed to appear for the deposition and as to the instant motion.

CCP ; 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” CCP ; 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds Defendant served a valid objection under ;2025.410.

Here, Defendant properly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition to proceed on 3/6/20. The motion to compel is unopposed and granted. (CCP ; 2025.450(a).) Plaintiffs Ignat Stepanenko is ordered to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Defendant. Defendant must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service).

CCP ; 2025.450(g)(1) requires the Court to impose sanctions unless it finds the deponent acted with substantial justification or there are circumstances that render imposition of sanctions unjust. Defendant requests sanctions of $2,160.00. The court awards Defendant two hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the rate of $250 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $750. Further, Defendant is awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff, who is in pro per. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant, by and through Defendant’s attorney of record, in the total amount of $810.00, within twenty days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely

Dated this 22nd day of September, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****7212    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

IGNAT STEPANENKO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOHN ROE, DDS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: ****7212

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING COUNSEL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 6, 2020

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Richard M. Katz, seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that further representation is not possible. Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiff’s address, within the past thirty days, by telephone. Counsel’s more specific declaration, however, details numerous attempts to contact Plaintiff during the thirty days prior to filing the motion, and consistently indicates that Plaintiff did not answer his phone and did not return the phone calls. Counsel must appear and clarify this discrepancy if he wishes to have the motion granted.

If the motion is granted, the relief will be effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Plaintiff.

The Court notes that trial is scheduled on 4/29/20, and encourages Plaintiff to retain a new attorney quickly if he wishes to protect his interest in the litigation.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.