This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 01:41:50 (UTC).

YVETTE MORENO ET AL VS ARMANDO ZETINA ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/21/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by YVETTE MORENO against ARMANDO ZETINA 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:

    ****6694

  • Filing Date:

    05/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

DE LA ROSA MARIO

MORENO YVETTE

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1-20

ZETINA ARMANDO

ZETINA GABINO

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFNENDANTS ARMANDO ZETINA AND GABINO ZETINA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/3/2018: DEFNENDANTS ARMANDO ZETINA AND GABINO ZETINA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ARMANDO ZETINA AND GABINO ZETINA

8/3/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ARMANDO ZETINA AND GABINO ZETINA

SUMMONS -- CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/3/2018: SUMMONS -- CROSS-COMPLAINT

GENERAL DENIAL

9/6/2018: GENERAL DENIAL

Substitution of Attorney

1/31/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

1/31/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Association of Attorney

5/29/2019: Association of Attorney

SUMMONS

5/21/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE

5/21/2018: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Armando Zetina (Defendant); Gabino Zetina (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Mario De La Rosa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Yvette Moreno (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • GENERAL DENIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • SUMMONS -- CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Armando Zetina (Defendant); Gabino Zetina (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ARMANDO ZETINA AND GABINO ZETINA

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Armando Zetina (Defendant); Gabino Zetina (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • DEFNENDANTS ARMANDO ZETINA AND GABINO ZETINA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Armando Zetina (Defendant); Gabino Zetina (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Yvette Moreno (Plaintiff); Mario De La Rosa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Yvette Moreno (Plaintiff); Mario De La Rosa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Yvette Moreno (Plaintiff); Mario De La Rosa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC706694    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motions for Terminating Sanctions

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No oppositions were filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 21, 2018, Plaintiffs Yvette Moreno (“Moreno”) and Mario De La Rosa (“De La Rosa”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Armando Zetina and Gabino Zetina (collectively “Defendants”) for negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 6, 2016.

On August 3, 2018, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs for implied indemnity, comparative contribution, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

On January 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed substitutions of attorney, indicating they were now representing themselves.

On July 30, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff Moreno to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).  Plaintiff Moreno was also ordered to pay $184.95 in monetary sanctions. 

On July 31, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff De La Rosa to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).  Plaintiff De La Rosa was also ordered to pay $184.95 in monetary sanctions. 

On September 11, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motions for terminating sanctions.  No oppositions were filed.

Trial is set for November 26, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request that this Court grant terminating sanctions by dismissing Plaintiffs complaint on grounds that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court orders to provide verified responses to discovery and pay monetary sanctions.

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 July 30, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff Moreno to serve on Defendants verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of the court’s order. in monetary sanctions within 30 days of the court’s order.

On July 31, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff De La Rosa to serve on Defendants verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of the court’s order.1 30 days of the court’s order. Id., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiffs have willfully disobeyed the Court’s orders.  While the July 30, 2019 and July 31, 2019 court orders required Plaintiffs to provide verified responses within 20 days of the orders, Defendants did not provide notice of the ruling until September 3, 2019, after the deadlines for providing the responses pursuant to the court orders.  In fact, there are no indications Defendants provided notice as to the July 30, 2019 court order compelling Plaintiff Moreno to serve verified responses at all.  The September 3, 2019 Notice of Ruling only attached the August 6, 2019 nunc pro tunc order that ordered Plaintiff De La Rosa to serve verified discovery responses. Plaintiffs also did not appear at the July 30, 2019 and July 31, 2019 hearings and thus had no direct knowledge of the court ordersGiven Plaintiffs had no notice of the court’s orders, either at all or with sufficient time to respond by the deadline, Plaintiffs could not have willfully disobeyed the orders.  Defendants are thus not entitled to terminating sanctions at this time.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for terminating sanctions are DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.