Case Number: 17K07500 Hearing Date: June 07, 2018 Dept: 94

Plaintiffs Janet Maclean Jansen and Frank Jansen’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Kiyan Maghsoodi aka Kiyan Maqsudi dba Imperial Design Center’s Answer is hereby stricken. Default is hereby entered against Defendant.

On June 15, 2017, Plaintiffs Janet Maclean Jansen and Frank Jansen (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this breach-of-contract action against Defendant Kiyan Maghsoodi aka Kiyan Maqsudi dba Imperial Design Center (“Defendant”). On July 14, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer. On February 27, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents, and ordered Defendant to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs (the “February 27, 2018 Order”).

On April 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions because Defendant failed to obey the February 27, 2018 Order.

Legal Standard

The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(CCP § 2023.030(d).)

The Court may impose terminating sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Id.) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Id. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229.) There are, however, 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.) 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.)

Discussion

Because Defendant was abusing the discovery process by failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, the Court ordered Defendant on February 27, 2018 to comply with his discovery obligations and imposed sanctions on Defendant. Plaintiffs properly served notice of the February 27, 2018 Order on Defendant. To date, Defendant has not complied with any parts of the February 27, 2018 Order (Gooch III Decl. ¶ 6), nor has Defendant filed an opposition to this Motion to explain her failure to comply with the Court’s Order and her discovery obligations. This long pattern of abuse of the discovery process and disobedience with this Court’s Order by Plaintiff cannot reasonably construe as anything less than willful.

Since Defendant filed her Answer and request for fee waiver on July 14, 2017, he has not made any general appearance in this action to defend himself. For whatever reason, it appears that Defendant is not willing to defend himself in this action.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court is persuaded that less severe sanctions would not bring Defendant into compliance with the discovery process. “The court [is] not required to allow this pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.) The Court, therefore, finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate here. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s Answer is hereby stricken. Default is hereby entered against Defendant.

Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions against Defendant. (Notice of Motion p. 3.) Given that terminating sanctions have been granted, imposing monetary sanctions would be futile in bringing Defendant into compliant with his discovery obligations. The Court exercises its discretion to DENY Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.