Case Number: BC659391 Hearing Date: January 15, 2019 Dept: 3

CHIN-FENG SHAO HSU, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SAN JOSE INVESTMENTS, LTD., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC659391

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 15, 2019

On 11/02/18, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions and imposed sanctions. To date, Plaintiffs have 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, Defendant cannot meaningfully prepare for trial with Plaintiffs’ depositions, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Third, Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion and appear 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.

Plaintiffs’ case against Moving Defendant is dismissed. Defendant is ordered to give notice.