Case Number: BC489890 Hearing Date: April 18, 2014 Dept: 93

Defendants John Ward and Gale Reaves Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED without prejudice. Based on a review of the file, it appears that plaintiffs have abandoned their case. The one and only evidence of any involvement on the part of plaintiffs was the filing of their complaint nearly two years ago (August 8, 2012). The file reflects no other involvement by plaintiffs in the case. More specifically, defendants propounded standard discovery on April 18, 2013. Plaintiffs never responded despite the fact that they were represented by counsel and counsel for defendants wrote a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel pointing out that no responses had been received and extending a further extension of time to respond. Defendants filed motions to compel. The motions were properly served on plaintiffs’ counsel, yet no oppositions were filed and there was no opposition put forth by plaintiffs’ counsel at the hearing. The court ordered plaintiffs to respond to the discovery and pay sanctions within ten days of the date of the order which was September 19, 2013. Plaintiffs did not respond and did not pay sanctions. In short, plaintiffs did not comply with any aspect of the order.

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. CCP §§ 2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495. Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516. “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.

The court recognizes that termination or dismissal of a case is a harsh penalty. However, based on the record before the court as described above, the court can reach no other conclusion than plaintiffs willfully violated the court’s September 19, 2014 order and have abandoned their lawsuit. In fact, although plaintiffs were properly served with the instant motion, they did not oppose it. For these reasons, dismissal of the action without prejudice is the appropriate remedy.

Defendants also request monetary sanctions. The court is ordering that the case be dismissed based on the fact that plaintiffs appear to have willfully violated a court order and abandoned their personal injury action. The dismissal is sanction enough. In addition, the additional imposition of sanctions would be a meaningless order given that the record shows that there is no indication that plaintiffs will obey an order requiring them to pay monetary sanctions. Defendants’ request for sanctions is, therefore, denied.