Case Number: 17STLC01264 Hearing Date: August 22, 2018 Dept: 94

Defendant Golden Motel’s Motion for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice under CCP § 2023.030(d).

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

I. Background

On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff Nicole Dixie (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Golden Motel (“Defendant”). On May 23, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel response to form interrogatories and ordered Plaintiff to serve her verified response within 20 days, and a notice of the order was served on Plaintiff on May 24, 2018. To date, Plaintiff has not served her verified response on Defendant’s form interrogatories. (Munro Decl. ¶ 6.)

On July 10, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (the “Motion”).

II. 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.

(4) 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. (See 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. (See Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

III. Discussion

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $525 against Plaintiff and terminating sanctions of this action. (Motion p. 4.)

Despite having been served with the May 23 Order to respond to Defendant’s form interrogatories, Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff’s abuse of the discovery process by failing to serve a verified response to Defendant’s form interrogatories caused Defendant to bring the motion to compel in the first place. Plaintiff fails to oppose the instant Motion and to argue why monetary or terminating sanctions should not be imposed. Plaintiff’s series of inaction demonstrates a pattern of abuse of the discovery process and disobedience with Court’s Order. It appears that Plaintiff is no longer interested or willing to prosecute his claims.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court is persuaded that less severe sanctions would not bring Plaintiff into compliance with her discovery obligations and Court’s orders. “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.)

IV. Conclusion

The Court, therefore, finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate here. Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice under CCP § 2023.030(d).

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. The request is DENIED as terminating sanctions have been granted and further monetary sanctions are futile.

Moving party to give notice.