2017-00209345-CU-PA

Julius Turner vs. College Oak Towing

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions (College Oak Towing)

Filed By: Meyer, Jr., Raymond

Defendant College Oak Towing’s unopposed motion for sanctions is granted as set forth below.

On September 27, 2017, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Julius Turner’s further responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production (sets one). Plaintiff was ordered to provide response as requested by Defendant and Defendant specifically requested Plaintiff provide complete responses without objections. Plaintiff did not comply with the order. On March 14, 2018, this Court again granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for further responses. Plaintiff was ordered to provide the responses no later than March 28, 2018. In addition, the Court awarded Defendant monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. The Court denied the alternate request for issue, evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions but indicated that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order could result in more serous sanctions, including terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the Court’s order.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any party of the action, of that party. See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(d)(1) and (3). The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. ( Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s multiple orders constitutes a misuse of the discovery process warranting terminating sanctions. A terminating sanction is particularly appropriate here given that Plaintiff failed to oppose the underlying discovery motions, the previous motion for sanctions, or the instant motion, which the Court sees as a concession on the merits. Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action against Defendant. The Court orders that Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is dismissed.

The Court will sign the proposed order.

Item 9 2017-00209345-CU-PA

Julius Turner vs. College Oak Towing

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions (Jacob Michael Walsh)

Filed By: Meyer, Jr., Raymond

Defendant Jacob Michael Walsh’s unopposed motion for sanctions is granted as set forth below.

On September 27, 2017, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Julius Turner’s further responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production (sets one). Plaintiff was ordered to provide response as requested by Defendant and Defendant specifically requested Plaintiff provide complete responses without objections. Plaintiff did not comply with the order. On March 14, 2018, this Court again granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for further responses. Plaintiff was ordered to provide the responses no later than March 28, 2018. In addition, the Court awarded Defendant monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. The Court denied the alternate request for issue, evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions but indicated that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order could result in more serous sanctions, including terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the Court’s order.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any party of the action, of that party. See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(d)(1) and (3). The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. ( Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s multiple orders constitutes a misuse of the discovery process warranting terminating sanctions. A terminating sanction is particularly appropriate here given that Plaintiff failed to oppose the underlying discovery motions, the previous sanctions motion or the instant motion, which the Court sees as a concession on the merits. Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action against Defendant. The Court orders that Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is dismissed.

The Court will sign the proposed order.