Case Number: BC496705    Hearing Date: August 04, 2014    Dept: 92

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

KATHRYN GARCIA,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

FRESCO MARKET, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC496705

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

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #24
August 4, 2014

Defendants, JSC & Tech, Inc., dba Fresco Market’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is Granted.

On 4/17/14, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. The Court also imposed monetary sanctions. Defendants gave notice of the ruling and made multiple attempts to meet and confer to schedule the deposition. Plaintiff has failed entirely to communicate, and has not appeared for deposition. At this time, Defendants move for terminating sanctions.

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 three reasons. First, the Court previously imposed monetary sanctions. Second, a deposition relates to all issues in the case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Third, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

Dated this 4th day of August, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court