2010-00070079-CU-AF

The People of the State of California vs. Ricardo Ramirez

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike

Filed By: Pongratz, A.J.

Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Striking the Claim of Real Party in Interest Ricardo
Ramirez opposing forfeiture is unopposed and is GRANTED.

Petitioner served discovery on real party in interest in March 24, 2010. Real Party did
not respond to discovery.

Petitioner filed a motion to compel real party to respond to the discovery requests,
which was unopposed. On Sept. 13, 2012 the Court ordered real party to serve
discovery responses, not later than Sept. 27, 2012. No responses have been received
by the Petitioner.

The Court finds that the real party in interest has willfully failed to obey his/her
discovery obligations. Therefore terminating sanctions are warranted and the claim
opposing forfeiture is stricken.

Although no California cases have been decided on this point, in a recent federal case,
forfeiture for failure to comply with discovery orders was upheld, as it is presumed that
dismissal is not an abuse of discretion if the party has the ability to comply with a
discovery order but does not. United States v. Reyes (6th Cir. 2002) 307 F.3d 451,
455. Further, analogously, the Real Party in Interest’s failure to respond to discovery
and failure to comply with the Court’s order constitutes misuse of the discovery
process. (CCP §2023.010(d),(g).) 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.)

This Court therefore finds that real party’s failure to respond to discovery requests and
failure to comply with the court order constitute misuses of the discovery process
warranting an order dismissing the claim opposing forfeiture by real party and
terminating the action.

Petitioner may seek a default and default judgment in the usual manner.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or further notice is required,
the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice, except that counsel for the petitioner is
instructed to serve a copy of this minute order on real party in interest.