Lawzilla Additional Information:
After the tentative ruling below was published Lawzilla reviewed the Los Angeles court records and believes plaintiff was found to have provided discovery responses and the motion for terminating sanctions was denied.

Case Number: BC649575 Hearing Date: May 22, 2018 Dept: 3

THERRESA TEJADA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SANTA ANITA BUSINESS PARK ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC649575

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

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

May 22, 2018

Defendant, Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs on Plaintiff on 9/11/17. On 3/26/18, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the outstanding discovery, and also imposing sanctions; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing 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 brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s 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.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. The request is denied; the Court finds imposition of terminating sanctions sufficient to meet the ends of justice at this time, and does not find imposition of additional monetary sanctions necessary.

Plaintiff’s case against Moving Defendant, Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. is dismissed. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.