On 10/13/2017 ROSA LOMELI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****6639
10/13/2017
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Norwalk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
ADAME ADAM AN INDIVIDUAL
LOMELI ROSA AN INDIVDUAL
ADAME ADAM
LOMELI ROSA
EXPO DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT INC. A
ERECTIONS UNLIMITED INC. A CALIFORNIA
GUTMAN AVRAHAM AN INDIVIDUAL
E UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION
TRUMER SHARON AN INDIVIDUAL
TRUMER SHARON
EXPO DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT INC.
ERECTIONS UNLIMITED INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA E UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION
GUTMAN AVRAHAM
GUERRERO & CHAN LLP
CHAN FRANKY C
VAN MYRNA
7/3/2019: Notice
12/1/2017: Legacy Document
3/9/2018: Request for Dismissal
6/29/2018: Order
6/29/2018: Minute Order
6/29/2018: Legacy Document
7/26/2018: Notice of Motion
8/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
12/18/2018: Minute Order
12/19/2018: Minute Order
1/16/2019: Order
1/24/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
1/24/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
1/24/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
1/24/2019: Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
1/24/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
2/27/2019: Notice of Ruling
4/5/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Non-Jury Trial
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)
DocketNotice (after hearing re: Motion to Compel); Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Defendant Avraham Gutman's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories) - Held - Motion Granted
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted
DocketOrder (hearing of 7/2/19); Filed by Clerk
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Defendant Avraham Gutman's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff)
DocketRequest for Correction; Filed by Clerk
DocketDefault Entered
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)
Case Number: VC066639 Hearing Date: November 07, 2019 Dept: SEC
LOMELI v. ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC.
CASE NO.: VC066639
HEARING: 11/07/19
JUDGE: RAUL A. SAHAGUN
#7
TENTATIVE ORDER
I. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant AVRAHAM GUTMAN is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.
II. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant EXPO DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT, INC. is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.
III. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC. is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.
IV. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant SHARON TRUMER is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.
Moving Party to give Notice.
No Opposition(s) filed as of November 4, 2019. The Court notes that Defendants’ former attorney’s Motion(s) to Withdraw were granted on February 27, 2019. As of November 4, 2019, no Substitution(s) of Counsel have been filed/lodged with the Court.
CCP §2023.010 includes: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” CCP §2023.030 provides, in part: “To the extent authorized by this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, may impose the [sanctions] against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, including monetary and issue and terminating sanctions.” Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP §§2023.010 (d) and (g).)
It is a commonly stated axiom that discovery 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 v. Kilbourne
Plaintiffs seek terminating sanctions due to Defendants’ refusal to participate in the discovery process, and failure to abide by this Court’s July 2, 2019 discovery Order(s).
Where no Oppositions have been filed as of November 4, 2019, it is undisputed that Defendants are refusing to participate in the discovery process and have violated this Court’s July 2, 2019 discovery Order by failing to serve further verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (set one) and failing to pay court-ordered sanctions.
The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Defendants’ discovery responses were requested many months ago, and the number of outstanding discovery issues are not particularly extensive. Further, the information sought by Plaintiffs are important to the case. Defendants’ failure to comply with Court Orders, and blatant refusal to participate in this litigation, supports the conclusion that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate.
The unopposed motion for terminating sanctions is granted. Defendants’ Answer FILED on December 18, 2018 is STRICKEN. The Court denies monetary sanctions, as terminating sanctions are sufficient redress.