What is a Motion for Terminating Sanctions?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Recent Rulings on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

GARCIA V. ACTERBERG

Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 [terminating sanctions properly imposed for repeated efforts to thwart discovery, including violation of two discovery orders].)” (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BARD VS DENNIS

Motion for Terminating Sanctions 2. Motion to Compel Deposition 3. Motion to Consolidate Cases for Trial 4. Review of Discovery Referee Order 5. Status Conference All matters are Continued to 10-9-2020

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CHINN VS. COOKS COLLISION

HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FILED BY COOKS COLLISION, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued to 8/13/20 per minutes of 6/26/20.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SCHWAB VS GNS RACING

As such, the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions would not be appropriate. However, if this conduct continues, terminating sanctions might be appropriate in the future.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DAVID AZIZI VS. BEHNAM RAFALIAN, ET AL.

Absent the violation of a direct order, issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this juncture. Ruling The motion for sanctions is denied. Next dates: Notice:

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MOL (AMERICAN) INC., VS INTER AUTO TRADE INC.,

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (CCP § 2023.010, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for common counts against Defendant Inter Auto Trade, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 6, 2018. A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 8, 2018. Defendant filed an Answer on January 14, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ASSADULLAH SHAHAND, ET AL. VS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, the court is empowered to impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, which includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. (b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

AGUILEO GUTIERREZ VS RAYMOND C. PERRY

The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

WAGNER VS MERCEDES BENZ USA

Form interrogatory 15.1: The motion for terminating sanctions for failing to properly respond to form interrogatory no. 15.1 is denied. Terminating sanctions are a final measure to remedy repeated and egregious misuses of the discovery process. Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992. Striking defendants' answers at this time would be procedurally and substantively premature.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HANK KYUNG KOO VS JONG OK LEE, ET AL.

A month later, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions. The motion for terminating sanctions initially came for hearing on December 17, 2019 at which time the Court found Plaintiff had not been provided proper notice following Plaintiff’s counsel’s change of address. (Minute Order, 12/17/19.) The Court denied the request for monetary sanctions and continued the request for terminating sanctions to February 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

JOHNNY GALLO VS JAY HERGOT

This case was dismissed on a motion for terminating sanctions. On June 28, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1032, 1033.5, 1717, and CRC Rule 3.1700(a). Defendant seeks $171,585 in attorney’s fees based on a rate of $450 per hour for 381.3 hours of work. Defendant also seeks costs of $4,710.88.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BOLADIAN VS NAUGLES CORP

On 8/19/19, this Court heard plaintiff’s motion for discovery terminating sanctions (based principally on plaintiff’s inability to secure deposition dates). Attorney Dickerson did not attend the hearing, nor did he file any opposition to the motion. This Court set an OSC, which Attorney Dickerson failed to acknowledge or appear for. Eventually, on 9/25/19, this Court was left with no alternative but to grant the request for terminating sanctions and strike defendants’ answer.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

LOUIS HUITRON, ET AL. VS CARL CHUDNOFSKY

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2023.030; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Carl Chudnofsky’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. However, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. In addition, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Provide Verified Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Set One and Request for Sanctions is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CP MARGUERITE MV, LLC VS. O’NEILL

Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED. As to the alternative issue/evidence sanction, it appears to be based on the same alleged wrongdoings as above. For the same reasons, the alternative motion for issue/evidence sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(consolidated w/ LAM17K03230) MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (CCP § 2023.010) TENTATIVE RULING: The hearing on Marianne Strauther’s Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 1, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. THE COURT ORDERS THAT ANTANESHA HASLEY APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION BY JULY 7, 2020. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF ANTANESHA HASLEY’S COMPLAINT AT THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

MARGIANNE REYNOLDS VS RACHEL GARCIA, ET AL.

To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendants seek 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

DIANA SANDERS VS DALE LEAKE, ET AL.

Dale LeAke, et al. 18TRCV00139 Diane Sanders’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Dale LeAke; Diane Sanders’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Elliott Straite TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Diane Sanders’ Motions for Orders for Terminating Sanctions Against Dale LeAke and Elliott Straite are denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

IAN J. SINGER VS. WAYNE GARY SAMUEL

Singer moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Wayne Gary Samuel. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d) authorizes the Court to impose terminating sanctions due to a party’s misuse of the discovery process. “A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party’s fundamental right to trial, thus implicating due process rights.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KELLY CHING, ET AL. VS ST. GEORGE AUTO GROUP (D.B.A. STG AUTO GROUP, A.K.A. STG AUTO AUCTION INC.)., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Nevertheless, the Court does not find that the circumstances warrant the imposition of terminating sanctions. First, no previous motion to compel Mr. Zia to appear for deposition has been granted. ((See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (h) [continued failure to appear at deposition after grant of motion to compel may result in more severe sanctions].) “[T]he sanctioned party's history as a repeat offender is not only relevant, but also significant, in deciding whether to impose terminating sanctions.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TALINE KASPARIAN VS DENIZ J GOCKEN M D ET AL

On December 4, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed the case. Plaintiff now contends that the action was improperly dismissed because she served responses on October 7, 2019 and Defendant had served a notice taking the motion for terminating sanctions off calendar on December 3, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This conduct include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an¿authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying¿a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

WAID VS RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC

B) Motion for Sanctions Plaintiff’s Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and/or Terminating Sanctions (“MFS”) is DENIED. In general, “[u]nder the statutory scheme, trial courts should select sanctions tailored to the harm caused by the misuse of the discovery process and should not exceed what is required to protect the party harmed by the misuse of the discovery process. Therefore, sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ARTUR MANUKYAN VS YS PROPERTIES LLC

Motion for Terminating Sanctions A. Relevant Law Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

SAM ROTER VS VALEE KUNARGTHAI

ANALYSIS: Motion for Stay N/A Motion for Terminating Sanctions Standard of Review Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose terminating sanctions due to a party’s misuse of the discovery process. Misuse of the discovery process includes a failure to respond to an authorized method of delivery and the failure to comply with a Court discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ELMER R CASTELLANOS ET AL VS ETHAN JOHN WHITED

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: June 29, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 195     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.