2015-00186531-CL-PA

Pascual Tomas vs. Celina Michelle Munoz

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Dismiss

Filed By: Williams, III, Henry

Defendant Celina Michelle Munoz’ (“Defendant”) motion for terminating sanctions is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against plaintiff Pascual Tomas (“Plaintiff”).

Plaintiff failed to appear at his depositions noticed for July 19, 2016, and December 12, 2016. Plaintiff never objected to the deposition notices and failed to appear at these two properly noticed depositions.

Defendant then filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s attendance and testimony at deposition, which was unopposed and granted by the Court on January 9, 2018. That same day, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting available dates for his deposition. Plaintiff did not reply. Accordingly, Defendant served a Third Amended Notice of Taking Deposition setting Plaintiff’s deposition for February 9, 2018. Plaintiff never objected to the deposition notice and failed to appear.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g),

2023.030(a-(d).) In ordering terminating sanctions, the Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.) Plaintiff, as a self-

represented party, is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.)

Here, it appears Plaintiff has intentionally ignored the Court’s order and his discovery obligations. Plaintiff has failed to properly object to any of the deposition notices served by Defendant and failed to appear at three properly noticed depositions. Plaintiff has also failed to cooperate with Defendant’s meet and confer efforts.

Plaintiff’s failure to appear for three properly noticed depositions, failure to comply with the Court’s order, and failure to meet and confer constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d), (g), (i).) Plaintiff also failed to oppose the underlying motion to compel as well as the instant motion. Collectively, this conduct indicates that he has abandoned the case against Defendants. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that a terminating sanction is warranted.

The motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions incurred in bringing this instant motion is GRANTED. Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions from Plaintiff in the amount of $454.20 ($131.40/hr x 3 hrs + $60 filing fee). Sanctions are to be paid on or before June 1, 2018. If sanctions are not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare a formal order granting sanctions for the Court’s signature, and the order may be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Defendant shall submit a formal order and judgment of dismissal for the Court’s signature pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312.