Case Number: BC628642 Hearing Date: August 29, 2018 Dept: 3

JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JACQUELINE BELITLLTI, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC628642

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

August 29, 2018

Defendants, Jaqueline and Shalom Belillti propounded special interrogatories, set three, supplemental interrogatories, and supplemental RPDs on Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Hernandez on 3/23/18. On 6/06/18, the Court issued an order compelling him to respond to the discovery, without objections, within ten days, and also ordering him to pay monetary sanctions.

On 7/03/18, Defendants filed this motion for terminating sanctions, contending Plaintiff had not complied with the prior order. On 8/16/18, Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion, contending he timely complied with the prior order because he served responses within twenty days after Defendant gave notice of the ruling; notably, responses were due within ten, not twenty, days after Defendant gave notice of the ruling.

Defendants, in reply, drop their argument that terminating sanctions should be imposed because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 6/06/18 order. They instead argue that other conduct by Plaintiff supports imposition of terminating sanctions. Defendants’ notice of motion sought terminating sanctions only on the ground that Plaintiff had not complied with the 6/06/18 order and had not paid previously imposed sanctions; the Court will not grant a motion for terminating sanctions on grounds not found in the notice of motion.

Notably, to the extent Defendants base their motion on the ground that Plaintiff has not paid multiple sanctions awards that have been imposed on him previously, the motion is also denied. Plaintiff was ordered to pay sanctions in connection with a prior motion to compel further responses and also a prior motion concerning tardy expert designation. However, failure to pay sanctions, standing alone, cannot give rise to additional punitive relief. See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615, holding, “a terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.” The Court, therefore, has not considered the failure to pay prior monetary sanctions as a basis of this order.

Neither party seeks imposition of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion, and none are imposed.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.