Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Santa Clara County court records we believe plaintiff is represented by attorney Elias Portales

On 11 April 2014, the motion of Richard and Jeanette Kaliska (“Defendants”) for terminating and monetary sanctions was argued and submitted. Thelma and Dominick Paronable (“Plaintiffs”) did not file formal opposition to the motion.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).

I. Background

On 18 March 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants for breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress.

On 20 September 2013, Defendants filed a cross-complaint for violation of the California Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, declaratory relief, and quiet title. The causes of action for both Plaintiffs and Defendants involve the property at 340 Lyndale Ave, San Jose, CA 95127 (“Property”).

Plaintiffs were former caregivers and tenants of Defendants. While Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as their caregivers, Plaintiffs entered into an agreement for Defendants to purchase the Property because they could not afford the mortgage payments. Defendants rented back Property to Plaintiffs and entered into a landlord-tenant relationship. With the surplus money received from a home equity loan, Defendants and Plaintiffs agreed to hold money at the Plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs would turn over their paychecks to Defendants to pay for rent. However, Plaintiffs did not make payment in full for several months.

Once Plaintiffs could no longer work as Defendants’ caregivers because of scheduling conflicts, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a three day to pay rent or quit notice on 13 September 2012.

The issue went to trial 9 November 2012 as case 112CV232586, and the Court ruled in favor of Defendants of this action. On 5 December 2012, Plaintiffs were evicted and Defendants took possession of the Property.

II. Discovery Dispute

On 25 October 2013, Defendants served the following first sets of discovery on Plaintiffs:

(a) form interrogatories

(b) special interrogatories

(c) a request for responses to production of documents

Discovery and responses were due on 29 November 2013. Plaintiffs did not provide a response or the requested discovery.

On 6 December 2013, Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiffs requesting a meet and confer to resolve the discovery dispute. Plaintiffs did not respond. Plaintiffs have not yet provided any responses or the requested discovery.

On 7 February 2014, this Court granted Defendants’ motion compelling discovery responses and imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,300. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide responses and pay sanctions within twenty (20) days of this Court’s order. Plaintiffs have not yet complied with this lawful Court Order.

On 6 March 2014, counsel for both parties appeared at an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal because counsel for Plaintiffs failed to appear at the last scheduled Case Management conference. Counsel for Defendants attempted a meet and confer regarding the discovery court order. Mr. Portales, counsel for Plaintiffs, responded,

 “My job is not to jump when you say so.” (Declaration of Alexandra C. Kavalaris, ¶ 8.) 

Counsel for Defendants received no more responses or communications from Plaintiffs.

III. Discussion

A. Motion for Terminating Sanction

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d)(3), the Court may impose terminating sanctions against a party who has misused the discovery process. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.020(d). Conduct constituting a misuse of the discovery process includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(g). If a party fails to obey a court order compelling answers to interrogatories and the production of documents, the Court has authority to impose a terminating sanction against the party. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(c) and 2031.310(i).

Defendants request a terminating sanction to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs misused the discovery process by not responding to any of Defendants’ outstanding discovery requests and by disobeying the Court’s order for response within 20 days of its filing on 7 February 2014.

Defendants’ discovery requests were reasonable in quantity and essential to investigate the cause of action. Each discovery method used by Defendant is authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the circumstances of these requests, the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint is justified. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796.

Since Defendants are unable to obtain the requested discovery, and Defendants’ requests were reasonable, essential and by a method authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure, a terminating sanction to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED.

B. Motion for Monetary Sanction

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(c), the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production, unless the one subject to the sanction acts with substantial justification. “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of that conduct…” Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a).

The determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee involves multiplying the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case. Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48-49. Sanctions should be awarded only for expenses actually incurred. See Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (1st Dist.2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.

Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition or responded to any requests made by Defendants. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Court’s order to compel discovery.

Defendants’ counsel’s hourly rate is $275 per hour with 3.5 hours of research and preparation conducted. In addition to $90 in court fees, the total award of sanctions is for $1,052.50.

Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED for the amount of $1,052.50. Plaintiffs are also required to pay the original monetary sanctions from the Court order granted on 7 February 2014 in the amount of $1300.

III. Conclusion and Order

The motion for terminating sanctions to dismiss Plaintiffs’’ amended complaint is GRANTED.

Defendants make a request for monetary sanctions. The request is code-compliant. Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040.