Case Number: BC611050 Hearing Date: December 19, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

MARIA S. BECERRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALABEE’S INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC611050

Hearing Date: November 28, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’s motion for Terminating Sanctions; MONETARY SANCTIONS

Defendant Calabee’s Inc (“Defendant”) has filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Maria S. Becerra (“Plaintiff”) due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey this Court’s order of July 25, 2018, compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s form interrogatories and requests for production. The Court previously considered this motion on November 28, 2018, and continued it to this date for Defendant to demonstrate that it properly served notice of the Court’s order of July 25, 2018, on Plaintiff. Defendant has done so. The motion is granted.

When a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, the court has discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) In this case, Defendant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Plaintiff has had notice of this Court’s order of July 25, 2018. (See Declaration of Brenda Smith re: Proof of Service in Support of Motion for Terminating Sanctions.) Plaintiff has still not responded to Defendant’s discovery, as this Court ordered her to do on July 25, 2018. Nor has Plaintiff opposed this motion or otherwise provided evidence that would demonstrate her failure to comply with the Court’s order was inadvertent. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that her failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery was unintentional. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487; Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796-797.)

Terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, but Defendant has demonstrated that it cannot achieve Plaintiff’s compliance with her discovery obligations and this Court’s orders through lesser sanctions. The Court has considered lesser sanctions, such as monetary sanctions, to enforce compliance with the Court’s order of July 25, 2018. However, given this record, the Court believes lesser sanctions would be futile, so the Court has no choice but to grant Defendant’s motion.

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such within ten days.

DATED: December 19, 2018 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court