What is a Motion for Terminating Sanctions?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Recent Rulings on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Terminating sanctions are appropriate only if a party’s failure to obey a court order actually prejudiced the opposing party. On the record here, the weight of the factors favors a denial of terminating sanctions. Lesser sanctions are appropriate here. Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is denied. The court finds that there was no substantial justification for failing to provide timely responses and that no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB VS SHAUN KAHARRI IVY, ET AL.

C/O: 02-02-21 MOTION C/O: 02-17-21 TRIAL DATE: 03-04-21 PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club RESP. PARTY: None MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (CCP § 2023.030) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SCILABS NUTRACEUTIALS, INC. VS. LUBERSKI INC.

That leaves the failure to pay monetary sanctions and the failure to appear for deposition as a basis for terminating sanctions. Of course, the failure to pay monetary sanctions does not justify terminating sanctions. (Newland v. Sup.Ct. (Sugasawara) (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) Thus, the only conduct at issue in the third motion that could have justified terminating sanctions was the failure to appear for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

NANCEE WATERHOUSE VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.

However, the Court concludes that monetary sanctions would be futile, and, in any event, terminating sanctions are sufficient. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: September 28, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAYELA CONTRERAS , ET AL. VS LAST MANAGEMENT PROPERTY

F-47 Date: 9/28/20 Case #19CHCV00037 MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS Motion filed on 8/21/20. MOVING PARTY: Defendants Last Management, LLC and Last Property Mangmnt RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Ramiro Valle Notice: ok RELIEF REQUESTED: An order imposing terminating sanctions to dismiss Plaintiff Ramiro Valle’s case and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his/her attorney of record in the amount of $540.00. RULING: The unopposed motion is granted as set forth below.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

STEPHENIE LAURICELLA VS JASPER PERRIN

.: 19STCV01481 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. September 25, 2020 On January 16, 2019, plaintiff Stephenie Lauricella filed this action against defendant Jasper Perrin arising from a November 22, 2017 automobile collision. Defendant moves for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 27, 2020 Order, requiring her to provide responses to Defendant’s written discovery.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SCHEIN VS SAN DIEGO SPORTS MEDICINE AND FAMILY HEALTH CENTER

A motion for terminating sanctions is on calendar for later this month. ROA 50. 2. Applicable Standards. Motions for leave to withdraw are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 284 and CRC 3.1362. Counsel are directed to use Judicial Council forms MC-051, 052, and 053. 3. Discussion and Ruling. The declaration supporting the motion states: "Ms. Shein has not responded to telephone calls, email or social media messages. Both I and my former assistant, Kimber Tabak, have tried to reach Ms.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ESMOND VS. THE RICHARD F. CRAWFORD COMPANY

Plaintiff’s two Amended Motions for Terminating Sanctions, or in the Alternative Evidentiary and Issue Sanctions, two Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, and two Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, are denied. The motions to compel further responses are moot because defendants have served further responses to all the discovery requests at issue in these motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

RONALD BELL, JR. VS JAMISON SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

The court has reviewed both Jamison’s and 811’s motions for terminating sanctions, filed 5/28/19 and 1/17/20, respectively, and both motions seek terminating sanctions against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s 4/17/20 Order. However, the court’s ruling on 6/25/19 already addressed this issue and granted terminating sanctions in Defendants Jamison’s and 811’s favor. (Min. Order 6/25/19.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MAYRA A MANZO VS FCA US LLC

App. 4th 967, 973-74, 994 [documents concerning customer complaint files were not produced during discovery prompting Court of Appeal to order trial court to issue terminating sanctions].) The motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 21. Defendant FCA US LLC is ordered to provide a further verified response and produce responsive documents to Request for Production No. 21 within 30 days hereof.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ESMOND VS. THE RICHARD F. CRAWFORD COMPANY

Plaintiff’s two Amended Motions for Terminating Sanctions, or in the Alternative Evidentiary and Issue Sanctions, two Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, and two Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, are denied. The motions to compel further responses are moot because defendants have served further responses to all the discovery requests at issue in these motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. TRAN

Similarly, the initial motion for terminating sanctions was served only on Nguyen. This has been a terribly confusing road to navigate. Attorney Benedict has claimed to represent two individuals seeking remuneration for injuries suffered in an accident, and the insurance carrier appears ready to address those claims. According to Benedict, one claimant “wishes to drop” his claim, and the other “is no longer represented by” his firm.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

BEAR TRUCKING INC VS GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP

Discussion The sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023 may include monetary, issue, evidentiary and terminating sanctions. However, the discovery statutes "evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination." Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CROCKER VS. RAYOSUN LLC

Based on Defendant's unexplained direct violation of this court's order, Defendant's continued failure to provide discovery responses and the ensuing prejudice to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's conduct, the court finds the "totality of the circumstances" warrants the imposition of terminating sanctions. See, Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690. See also, Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1, 12; Mileikowsky v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KAMRAN NAIMI, ET AL., VS KAYVAN NAIMI, ET AL.,

SC125414 Hearing Date September 24, 2020 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, Including Terminating Sanctions; Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, Including Terminating Sanctions Plaintiffs seek terminating and evidentiary sanctions, arguing defendants forged documents and obstructed discovery. Plaintiffs argue the multi-asset family partnership, including car dealerships and real estate, is shared 50/50 between brothers Kamran and Kayvan.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

REESHEMAH WATSON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ELSY TORRES, AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendant now moves for terminating sanctions to dismiss Plaintiff’s case. Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.”¿ (Code¿Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290,¿subd. (c), 2023.010,¿subd. (c);¿R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd.¿(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY VS GABRIELA GONZALEZ

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los¿Defensores, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citing¿Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases];¿see, e.g.,¿Collisson¿& Kaplan v.¿Hartunian¿(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery];¿Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

WIMBERLEY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions/entry of default judgment against Defendant City of San Diego is DENIED. The City identifies several defects with Plaintiff's motion including that Plaintiff does not identify the specific discovery requests at issue and the City's responses and that there is no prior order from this court ordering the City to produce documents. Rather than ruling on these purported defects, the court rules on the merits of the parties' dispute as follows.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SAN ALICIA HOA VS. MASON

. _____________________________________________ The following is the Court's tentative decision concerning the motion of plaintiff, San Alicia Homeowner's Association ("HOA"), for terminating sanctions against defendant, Wallace Erick Mason ("Mason"): The Court GRANTS the motion for terminating sanctions against Mason for the following reasons: (1) Terminating sanctions are a last resort when all other means of compelling lawful discovery have failed. (Motown Record Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

RAUL SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los¿Defensores, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citing¿Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases];¿see, e.g.,¿Collisson¿& Kaplan v.¿Hartunian¿(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery];¿Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ANN MARIE STREIBICH VS MARK SHINNICK

Analysis Terminating Sanctions Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant based on Defendant’s repeated failure to respond to discovery and violation of the Court’s orders. Plaintiff argues that terminating sanctions are warranted in this case because Defendant has not responded to discovery in this case, which has impeded her ability to prepare for trial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

KAREN PELLE V. MALIKA BK SINGH

If Defendant does not appear at the hearing, the Court will entertain an appropriate motion for terminating sanctions from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

As the Court is granting terminating sanctions it declines to impose monetary sanctions. Conclusion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants Dorado’s and Villar’s answers are STRICKEN and the Court enters a default against Defendants Dorado and Villar. Plaintiff to provide notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

GABRIEL GARCIA VS DOLLAR TREE STORES INC

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions at this time. 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 two reasons.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

On January 9, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions in part, by (1) striking Defendants’ answer to the complaint and (2) striking the Defendants’ cross-complaint. On February 26, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion to vacate terminating sanctions. On March 22, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider the court’s February 26, 2019 order denying Defendants’ motion to vacate terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 204     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.