What is a Motion for Terminating Sanctions?

Useful Resources for Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Recent Rulings on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

KOREAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE USA VS DAVID KANG, ET AL.

Rice Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Moving Party: Plaintiff Korean American Chamber of Commerce USA Responding Party: Unopposed Ruling: While terminating sanctions are not ordered at this time, issue and evidentiary sanctions are ordered as set forth below.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

5975-5999 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD., LLC VS. AHANG ZARIN KELK

In the Reghabi Case, the Court issued terminating sanctions against Ahang Mirshojae and judgment against Ahang Mirshojae and in favor of Khosro Reghabi was entered in the amount of $390,274.24. Hamid Reza Mirshojae’s claims against Khosro Reghabi and Khosro Reghabi’s claims against Hamid Reza Mirshojae went to trial in February 2020. Hamid Reza Mirshojae obtained a judgment against Khosro Reghabi in the amount of $5,482,269.18 and prevailed against Khosro Reghabi’s fee claims (Reghabi Judgment).

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GAVIN V. TRUE

‘A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’ [Citation.] (Footnote 5 omitted.) Lee v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

AARON HIDALGO VS RAFAEL CROVER, ET AL.

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. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

Defendants The Hops, LLC and August move for terminating sanctions or alternatively for evidence or issue sanctions per CCP § 2023.030. If anyone engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary sanction, issue sanction, evidence sanction, terminating sanction, and contempt sanction. (CCP § 2023.030.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JACQUELINE CANNON VS MANDY KOFSKY, ET AL.

On November 24, 2020, Defendant Anthony Kofsky filed the present motion for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff again has not opposed the motion. The failure to comply with a court’s order is discovery abuse for which terminating sanctions are authorized. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(g).) Terminating and sanctions are appropriate where there is outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. (Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

MARIA WILMINDA-SICO, ET AL. VS VICTORIA DO LEE

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Ibid. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246); 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

    Jan 26, 2021

GITI SHOUSHANI VS SHAVER KORFF CASTRONOVO LLP, ET AL.

If Plaintiff does not comply with such order or flouts the discovery process in another manner, and Defendants file another motion for terminating sanctions in the future, the Court will consider issuing terminating sanctions. Issue No.2: Monetary Sanctions Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

DUMBRAVA VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Motion for Terminating Sanctions 2. Application to File Portion of Documents Under Seal Moving Party: Defendant The Regents of the University of California Responding Party: N/A OSC re Dismissal. If the plaintiff fails to appear, the case will be dismissed. Ruling: Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s unopposed Application to File Portions of Documents Under Seal is granted. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

VU V. FEITSER

Plaintiffs also request evidence, issue and terminating sanctions. As stated earlier in this ruling, plaintiffs do not move to compel compliance with the May 28, 2019 and September 4, 2019 discovery orders compelling further responses to discovery. Failure to obey a court order compelling discovery may result in additional sanctions as are just, including evidence, issue, and terminating sanctions, and the court may also impose additional monetary sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

MIGUEL FLORES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, in which a consumer had brought an action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and the trial court had entered judgment on a jury verdict finding that the act had been unintentionally violated, but the court of appeal found that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to impose terminating sanctions against defendant for violating discovery orders, in conduct characterized as stonewalling in producing “highly relevant documents.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

MIRELLA CARBAJAL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, in which a consumer had brought an action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and the trial court had entered judgment on a jury verdict finding that the act had been unintentionally violated, but the court of appeal found that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to impose terminating sanctions against defendant for violating discovery orders, in conduct characterized as stonewalling in producing “highly relevant documents.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ARACELI MONTES VS FIRST IMAGE NURSERY LLC ET AL

The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has no meritorious arguments against terminating sanctions. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487; Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796-797.) The motion for terminating sanctions is granted. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answers is granted. Defendant is in default as of this date. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STEELE TILE, INC. V. TAJ FLOORING, INC.

., for terminating sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A demurrer to the fifth cause of action was sustained with leave to amend but the plaintiff failed to amend the complaint within the time allowed. The fifth cause of action is DISMISSED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2).) The court granted the defendant’s discovery motion and the plaintiff has not complied with that order. Sanctions should be applied incrementally. Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

FINANCIAL PACIFIC LEASING, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION VS GOLDEN GREEN GARGO, INC., A CALIFORNIA COROPRATION, ET AL.

The Court DENIES monetary sanctions, as terminating sanctions are sufficient redress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARACELI MONTES VS FIRST IMAGE NURSERY LLC ET AL

Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted and the Court orders Defendant’s answer to the First Amended Complaint stricken. Accordingly, Defendant is in default as of the date of this order. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such. DATED: January 21, 2021 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

M S INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. N & F GRANITE AND FINE FLOORING, INC.

The unopposed motion of the plaintiff for terminating sanctions as to defendants N & F Granite and Fine Flooring, Inc., and Francisco DaSilva is GRANTED, and the answer of both is STRICKEN. The plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

BELLA ALL NATURAL, INC VS MAYELI ALONSO

However, the Court cannot conclude that terminating sanctions is appropriate at this time. Cross-Complainant has provided some discovery responses in response to Cross-Defendant’s discovery and orders. Thus, this is not a situation where a party has abandoned her case. Also, it is not clear that lesser sanctions will not produce compliance, as discussed below. Cross-Defendant mentions Cross-Complainant has not paid sanctions, but that it not a basis for terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS RAY OF HOPE HOME INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiffs argue Defendant Ray of Hope did not paid sanctions, but that is not a basis for terminating sanctions. Even if Defendant Ray of Hope has produced documents, it has not responded to all of the discovery at issue in the 2019 and 2020 discovery orders. Defendant did not submit evidence that Plaintiffs agreed to the withdrawal of the discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALVAREZ, MARY

SEQUEIRA, LESTER – Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with the Court’s Orders Imposing Monetary Sanctions and Request for Further Monetary, Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions – GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part, without prejudice. Under the circumstances, the Court declines to resort to the imposition of terminating sanctions at this time. However, Plaintiff is again ordered to comply with the Court’s previous orders awarding monetary sanctions to Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

RITA DAVIDSON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

City of Los Angeles On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Defendants John Bean Technologies Corp. and Tom Bradley International Terminal Equipment Company's Motion for Terminating Sanctions / Evidentiary Sanctions for Failure of Plaintiff to Comply With Court Order, to Compel Compliance With Court Order and to Submit to Mental Examination and to Pay Prior Ordered Monetary Sanctions; Request for Further Monetary Sanctions; Hearing on Defendant City of Los Angeles' Motion for Order Issuing Terminating Or Evidentiary

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

ABRAHAM CURAMMENG VS JACQUELINE BOCKAR

Furthermore, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are inappropriate at this time. However, Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff requests $3,000 in sanctions. Plaintiff’s billing rate is $450 an hour and he declares he spent 2.5 hours to this Motion and anticipates spending 3 hours to review the opposition and draft a reply and 1 hour to attend the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LUBIN ROCHA VS MARIA LOPEZ

Terminating Sanctions Defendant seeks terminating sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery responses and pay monetary sanctions as required by the Court’s January 21, 2020 Order. (Mot., p. 3:15-21; p. 5:1-5.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

COASTLINE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC VS. OPTIMUM BIO LAB, INC

Because terminating sanctions are drastic, it is generally recognized that “terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly, only when the trial court concludes that lesser sanctions would not bring about the compliance of the offending party.” (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Courts contemplating imposition of a terminating sanction should generally engage in a “balancing process,” (McGinty v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

EPIGMENIO RIVERA, JR. VS RALPH RIVERA

The court having read and considered plaintiff’s unopposed motion to impose terminating sanctions on defendant David Rivera filed herein on December 16, 2020 and good cause appearing therefrom the court rules as follows. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Trial Setting Conference set for 1/20/21 at 8:45 AM is vacated. Further Case Management Conference Re Judgment is set for May 28, 2021 at 8:45 AM in Department 10A. Hon. George J. Abdallah Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 218     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.