Case Number: BC506272    Hearing Date: July 29, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ARTUR NAZARYAN,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

IRENE JONES, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC506272

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #30
July 29, 2014

Defendant, Irene Jones’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions is Granted.

Defendant propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and RPDs on Plaintiff, Artin Hambarsonpour on 9/24/13. On 1/17/14, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the foregoing discovery and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses, without objections, within sixty days.

Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where imposition of terminating sanctions is appropriate without first imposing issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 490-91.

Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time for these reasons. A brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and appears to have abandoned the case. The Court further notes that the 1/17/14 ruling granted Plaintiff Artin Hambarsonpour additional time to respond (ie: sixty days) so that Plaintiff’s counsel could locate the whereabouts of his client, who is incarcerated. This was sufficient time for counsel to locate his client. In that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order, the motion to terminate is granted.

Dated this 29th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court