This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/03/2019 at 02:55:45 (UTC).

JUAN PAOLO BUERANO VS DARRYL DUNNING

Case Summary

On 05/25/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by JUAN PAOLO BUERANO against DARRYL DUNNING 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:

    ****7776

  • Filing Date:

    05/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BUERANO JUAN PAOLO

Defendants and Respondents

DUNNING DARRYL

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

HOONANIAN ROSS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GATES GONTER GUY PROUDFOOT & MUENCH LLP

TRAFTON ALAN PAUL

 

Court Documents

Order - Dismissal

10/24/2019: Order - Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT DARRYL DUNNING'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

10/24/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT DARRYL DUNNING'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

9/11/2019: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

8/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

2/15/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

2/15/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL)

3/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL)

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/20/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GLENDA RIVERA

3/20/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GLENDA RIVERA

Proof of Service by Mail

3/22/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JUAN P. BUERANO'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 920

4/29/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JUAN P. BUERANO'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 920

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JUAN P. BUERANO'S RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS I DOCUMENTS I AND OTHER TANGIBLE ITEMS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR

4/29/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JUAN P. BUERANO'S RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS I DOCUMENTS I AND OTHER TANGIBLE ITEMS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

9/10/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

9/10/2018: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

9/10/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

9/10/2018: DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

SUMMONS -

5/25/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLATNT FOR DAMAGES

5/25/2018: COMPLATNT FOR DAMAGES

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/24/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant Darryl Dunning's Motion for Terminating Sanctions)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2019
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Darryl Dunning (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel (PLAINTIFF JUAN P. BUERANO'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 920); Filed by Darryl Dunning (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel (TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JUAN P. BUERANO'S RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS I DOCUMENTS I AND OTHER TANGIBLE ITEMS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF); Filed by Darryl Dunning (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Juan Paolo Buerano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Darryl Dunning (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Darryl Dunning (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Juan Paolo Buerano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketCOMPLATNT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Juan Paolo Buerano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707776    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for an Order for Terminating Sanctions

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff Juan Paolo Buerano filed a complaint against Defendant Darryl Dunning seeking damages for a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 4, 2017.

On March 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

On August 5, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production (Set One).

On September 11, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions.  No opposition was filed.

Trial is set for November 26, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests that this Court grant terminating sanctions by dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on grounds that Plaintiff misused the discovery process and failed to comply with the Court’s August 5, 2019 order.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling a response to interrogatories or a request for production, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  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: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . . .”

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’”  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).)  “Generally, ‘[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.’”  (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  (Ibid. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246); 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).)

DISCUSSION

On August 5, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve on Defendant verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of the court’s order.  The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $1,195.00 in monetary sanctions within 30 days of the court’s order. August 5, 2019, Defendant filed and served a notice of the Court’s August 5, 2019 order on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Trafton Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. F.) Id., ¶ 8.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process by disobeying the Court’s August 5, 2019 order to serve verified discovery responses without objections.  Plaintiff was served with a Notice of Ruling of the Court’s order and notice of this motion for terminating sanctions.  Based on this, the Court finds that Plaintiff had knowledge of his discovery obligations, the Court order compelling his compliance and payment of monetary sanctions, and that his case was at a risk of being dismissed.  Plaintiff has also failed to file an opposition demonstrating that he may have abandoned this case.  Given Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with discovery obligations, failures to pay monetary sanctions, failure to meet and confer with defense counsel, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.  

Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.