Preview
1 O’HAGAN MEYER
THEODORE C. PETERS, ESQ. (SBN 235115)
2 JOHN BEEMER, ESQ. (SBN 302654)
2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 300
3 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Tel: 310.807.1100 | Fax: 310.807.1115
4 Email: tpeters@ohaganmeyer.com
Email: jbeemer@ohaganmeyer.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendants
Walmart Inc. and Neil Batarseh
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 SABRA HARRIS, an individual, Case No.: 20STCV49550
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
13 TERMINATING SANCTIONS,
vs. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 AUTHORITIES
ATTORNEYS "'- ADVISORS
15 WALMART INC.; NEIL BATARSEH; and [filed concurrently with Declaration of Bessie
16 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, A. Mafud; [Proposed] Order]
Judge: The Hon. Daniel Crowley
17 Defendants.
Department: 28
18
Hearing Date: June 8, 2023
19 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.
Hearing Location: Dept. 28
20
RESERVATION ID: 53030452312
21
22 Judge: Hon. Daniel Crowley, Dept. 28
23 Complaint Filed: December 29, 2020
Trial Date: August 11, 2023
24
25
///
26
///
27
28 ///
1
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1
TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD HEREIN:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 8, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the
3
matter may be heard, in Department 28 of the above-entitled court, located at 312 N. Spring
4
Street, Los Angeles, CA, WALMART INC. and NEIL BATARSEH (collectively, “Defendants”)
5
will and hereby does move this Court for an order imposing terminating sanctions against
6
Plaintiff SABRA HARRIS (“Plaintiff”). This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil
7
Procedure section 2023.030 on the grounds that despite Defendants’ meet and confer efforts,
8
Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s January 26, 2023 Order directing Plaintiff to serve
9
discovery responses by February 26, 2023, without objections.
10
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points
11
and Authorities, the Declaration of Bessie A. Mafud and exhibits attached thereto, and any further
12
oral and/or documentary evidence presented at the hearing of this Motion.
13
OTHAGAN MEYER
14 DATED: April 19, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS
15 O’HAGAN MEYER
16
17
18 By: ___________________________
THEODORE C. PETERS, ESQ.
19
BESSIE A. MAFUD, ESQ.
20 Attorneys for Defendants, Walmart Inc. and
Neil Batarseh
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I. INTRODUCTION
3
This case arises out of an alleged slip and fall occurring at the business premises of
4
Defendant Walmart Inc. located at 19821 Rinaldi Street in Porter Ranch, California on August 28,
5
2019, alleged to be the result of a “liquid and/or slippery substance which had been allowed to
6
accumulate on the public floor.
7
Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s January 26, 2023 Order directing Plaintiff to
8
serve responses to Defendant Walmart’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for
9
production and to produce the requested documents and/or things, without objections, by February
10
26, 2023 (“Order”). Prior to this Court issuing the Order, defense counsel provided Plaintiff with
11
numerous extensions and wrote to Plaintiff counsel requesting responses prior to filing motions to
12
compel. Defense counsel even wrote to Plaintiff counsel prior to the filing of this motion
13
OTHAGAN MEYER
requesting responses be served no later than April 14, 2023 – that is nine (9) months from the time
14
the responses were initially due. Given Plaintiff’s consistent failure to comply with the spirit of
ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS
15
discovery and this Court’s Order, it is clear that any further orders compelling discovery would be
16
futile. Defendants therefore respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Terminating
17
Sanctions, and dismiss this case with prejudice.
18
II. RELEVANT FACTS
19
20 On June 27, 2022, Defendant Walmart served written discovery requests, including Special
21 Interrogatories (set one), Form Interrogatories (set one) and Requests for Production (set one) upon
22 Plaintiff. (Declaration of Bessie A. Mafud [“Mafud Decl.”] ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Pursuant to Code of Civil
23 Procedure sections 2030.260 and 2031.260, responses to the discovery requests were due July 29,
24 2022. (Mafud Decl., ¶ 4.) A series of verbal extensions to respond were granted. (Id.) On August
25 10, 2022, the parties stipulated to a final and mutual extension of time for responses to the at-issue
26 discovery until August 26, 2022. (Mafud Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B). Plaintiff has since failed to produce
27 any responses or responsive documents. (Mafud Decl., ¶ 6.)
28 On September 12, 2022, defense counsel sent an e-mail correspondence to Plaintiff’s
counsel to inquire about the status of the overdue discovery responses. (Mafud Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. C).
3
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1
Plaintiff ignored this inquiry. Accordingly, Defendant Walmart filed motions to compel responses
2
and production to Defendant Walmart’s Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatires, and Requests
3
for Production (“Motions”).
4
The Motions were heard on January 26, 2023 by this Court. (Mafud Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. D.) The
5
Court granted the Motions and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to the at-issue discovery and
6
produce the requested documents and/or things by February 25, 2023, without objections. (Id.) On
7
March 16, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of this Court’s Order and requested
8
responses to the at-issue discovery be served by April 14, 2023. (Mafud Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. E-F.)
9
As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff has not provided a single response to any of
10
Defendant Walmart’s discovery requests or produce any documents and/or things. (Mafud Decl. ¶
11
10.) Plaintiff has had more than half a year to serve her discovery responses. That is more than
12
sufficient time to respond to discovery.
13
OTHAGAN MEYER
As a result of Plaintiff’s willful refusal to engage in the spirit of discovery, Defendants are
14
unable to proceed with meaningful discovery and prepare their defense. The information requested
ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS
15
is necessary in order to effectively prosecute this action and prepare for trial. Accordingly,
16
Defendants are forced to file the present motion seeking terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for
17
her willful, nine month long abuse of the discovery process and utter failure to participate in
18
Defendant’s discovery efforts and advancement of the case.
19
20 III. LEGAL AUTHORITY
21 Terminating sanctions may be imposed for misuse of the discovery process. Cal. Code.Civ.
22 Pro.§ 2023.030(d); Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199,207. Section
23 2023.030(d) states:
24 The Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:
25 1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in
26 the misuse of the discovery process.
27 2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is
28 obeyed.
3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.
4
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1
4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.
2
Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery
3
process; so is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Id.)
4
A court may properly take into account [Plaintiff’s] intent to thwart discovery and
5
evasive tactics. (Housing Authority of the City of Alameda v. Gomez (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d
6
366, 373 [terminating sanction upheld where “the trial court could justifiably conclude that
7
defendant had no intention of being deposed and would continue to engage in evasive tactics
8
toward that end”].) Much like in Housing Authority, the present Plaintiff has demonstrated a
9
“disobedience of a court order.”Id.; see also Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.
10
App. 4th 1611, 1619 (affirming terminating sanction where (1) defendants chose to ignore the
11
many formal and informal attempts by plaintiff to secure discovery responses; and (2)
12
defendants failed to comply with the trial court's order compelling discovery).
13
OTHAGAN MEYER
Much like in Collision & Kaplan, the Plaintiff has plainly ignored discovery requests
14
and Defendant’s attempts to advance this matter. Ultimately, the trial court holds the inherent
ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS
15
power to control the litigation before it and the discretion to dismiss the action for deliberate
16
and egregious misconduct such as that of the Plaintiff in the present case. ( Stephen Slesinger,
17
Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 736, 762 & 764.)
18
IV. ARGUMENT
19
20 A. Terminating Sanctions Are Warranted in This Case
21 California discovery law provides for a range of penalties for “misuse of the discovery
22 process.” (Civil Code § 2023.030; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.
23 4th 1, 12.) That misuse includes:
24 • “Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” (C.C.P. §
25 2023.010(d)) - i.e., failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests;
26 • “Disobeying a court order to provide discovery” (§ 2023.0I0(g))- i.e., failing to respond to
27 Defendant’s motion to compel discovery as ordered.
28 In the present case, Plaintiff has demonstrated a complete disregard for the authority of
the court and for her legal obligations. She has unquestionably avoided her discovery
5
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1
obligations in this case-- principally, her failure to respond to Defendant Walmart’s discovery
2
requests and this Court’s January 26, 2023 Order. Meanwhile, Defendants have complied in
3
good faith with its own discovery obligations and has attempted to work with Plaintiff to remedy
4
her discovery abuses. Accordingly, Defendants move for terminating sanctions dismissing
5
Plaintiff’s complaint and this instant case with prejudice.
6
VI. CONCLUSION
7
For the forgeoing reasons, the Court should grant the motion by granting terminating
8
sanctions and dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s respective complaint.
9
10
11 DATED: April 19, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
12 O’HAGAN MEYER
13
OTHAGAN MEYER
14 By: ____________________________________
THEODORE C. PETERS, ESQ.
ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS
15
BESSIE A. MAFUD, ESQ.
16 Attorneys for Defendants, Walmart Inc. and
Neil Batarseh
17
.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Sabra Harris vs. Walmart Inc., et al.
2 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV49550
3
4 I am over the age of eighteen years old and not a party to the within action. I am
employed by O’Hagan Meyer, whose business address is 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite
5 300, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.
6
On April 19, 2023, I served the below referenced document(s) on the parties reflected on
7 the included service list:
8
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, MEMORANDUM OF
9 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
10 [BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6 I caused such
~
11 document(s) to be electronically transmitted to the email addresses of the parties
listed on the Service List pursuant to agreement with counsel for the parties to
12 receive service by e-mail.
13
OTHAGAN MEYER
[BY MAIL SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1013 I caused the document(s)
□
14 described above to be deposited for processing in the mailroom in our office. I am
“readily familiar” with the firm’s practices of collection and processing
ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS
15 correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U. S. Postal Service on that
same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Hermosa Beach, California, in the
16 ordinary course of business.
17
[BY OVERNIGHT SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1013 I enclosed the
□
18 document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier
and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above. I placed the envelope or
19 package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized
drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
20
[BY PERSONAL SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1011 - I caused such
□
21
document(s) to be hand delivered to the addressee(s) so indicated.
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct.
25 Executed on April 19, 2023, at Hermosa Beach, California.
26
27
Debbie Ristovski
28
7
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
1
SERVICE LIST
2 Sabra Harris vs. Walmart Inc., et al.
3 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV49550
4
Erick B. Novik Counsel for Plaintiff
5 Kevin Salute Sabra Harris
Hanz Benavides (paralegal)
6 NOVIK LAW GROUP
16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite 508
7
Encino, CA 91436
8 Tel: 818.305.6041 | Fax: 818.305.6042
Email: erick@noviklawgroup.com
9 Email: kevin@noviklawgroup.com
Email: hanz@noviklawgroup.com
10
11
12
13
OTHAGAN MEYER
14
ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Preview
1 O’HAGAN MEYER THEODORE C. PETERS, ESQ. (SBN 235115) 2 JOHN BEEMER, ESQ. (SBN 302654) 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 300 3 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Tel: 310.807.1100 | Fax: 310.807.1115 4 Email: tpeters@ohaganmeyer.com Email: jbeemer@ohaganmeyer.com 5 6 Attorneys for Defendants Walmart Inc. and Neil Batarseh 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 SABRA HARRIS, an individual, Case No.: 20STCV49550 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 TERMINATING SANCTIONS, vs. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 14 AUTHORITIES ATTORNEYS "'- ADVISORS 15 WALMART INC.; NEIL BATARSEH; and [filed concurrently with Declaration of Bessie 16 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, A. Mafud; [Proposed] Order] Judge: The Hon. Daniel Crowley 17 Defendants. Department: 28 18 Hearing Date: June 8, 2023 19 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Hearing Location: Dept. 28 20 RESERVATION ID: 53030452312 21 22 Judge: Hon. Daniel Crowley, Dept. 28 23 Complaint Filed: December 29, 2020 Trial Date: August 11, 2023 24 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 /// 1 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 1 TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD HEREIN: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 8, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard, in Department 28 of the above-entitled court, located at 312 N. Spring 4 Street, Los Angeles, CA, WALMART INC. and NEIL BATARSEH (collectively, “Defendants”) 5 will and hereby does move this Court for an order imposing terminating sanctions against 6 Plaintiff SABRA HARRIS (“Plaintiff”). This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil 7 Procedure section 2023.030 on the grounds that despite Defendants’ meet and confer efforts, 8 Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s January 26, 2023 Order directing Plaintiff to serve 9 discovery responses by February 26, 2023, without objections. 10 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points 11 and Authorities, the Declaration of Bessie A. Mafud and exhibits attached thereto, and any further 12 oral and/or documentary evidence presented at the hearing of this Motion. 13 OTHAGAN MEYER 14 DATED: April 19, 2023 Respectfully submitted, ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS 15 O’HAGAN MEYER 16 17 18 By: ___________________________ THEODORE C. PETERS, ESQ. 19 BESSIE A. MAFUD, ESQ. 20 Attorneys for Defendants, Walmart Inc. and Neil Batarseh 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 This case arises out of an alleged slip and fall occurring at the business premises of 4 Defendant Walmart Inc. located at 19821 Rinaldi Street in Porter Ranch, California on August 28, 5 2019, alleged to be the result of a “liquid and/or slippery substance which had been allowed to 6 accumulate on the public floor. 7 Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s January 26, 2023 Order directing Plaintiff to 8 serve responses to Defendant Walmart’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for 9 production and to produce the requested documents and/or things, without objections, by February 10 26, 2023 (“Order”). Prior to this Court issuing the Order, defense counsel provided Plaintiff with 11 numerous extensions and wrote to Plaintiff counsel requesting responses prior to filing motions to 12 compel. Defense counsel even wrote to Plaintiff counsel prior to the filing of this motion 13 OTHAGAN MEYER requesting responses be served no later than April 14, 2023 – that is nine (9) months from the time 14 the responses were initially due. Given Plaintiff’s consistent failure to comply with the spirit of ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS 15 discovery and this Court’s Order, it is clear that any further orders compelling discovery would be 16 futile. Defendants therefore respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Terminating 17 Sanctions, and dismiss this case with prejudice. 18 II. RELEVANT FACTS 19 20 On June 27, 2022, Defendant Walmart served written discovery requests, including Special 21 Interrogatories (set one), Form Interrogatories (set one) and Requests for Production (set one) upon 22 Plaintiff. (Declaration of Bessie A. Mafud [“Mafud Decl.”] ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Pursuant to Code of Civil 23 Procedure sections 2030.260 and 2031.260, responses to the discovery requests were due July 29, 24 2022. (Mafud Decl., ¶ 4.) A series of verbal extensions to respond were granted. (Id.) On August 25 10, 2022, the parties stipulated to a final and mutual extension of time for responses to the at-issue 26 discovery until August 26, 2022. (Mafud Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B). Plaintiff has since failed to produce 27 any responses or responsive documents. (Mafud Decl., ¶ 6.) 28 On September 12, 2022, defense counsel sent an e-mail correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about the status of the overdue discovery responses. (Mafud Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. C). 3 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 1 Plaintiff ignored this inquiry. Accordingly, Defendant Walmart filed motions to compel responses 2 and production to Defendant Walmart’s Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatires, and Requests 3 for Production (“Motions”). 4 The Motions were heard on January 26, 2023 by this Court. (Mafud Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. D.) The 5 Court granted the Motions and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to the at-issue discovery and 6 produce the requested documents and/or things by February 25, 2023, without objections. (Id.) On 7 March 16, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of this Court’s Order and requested 8 responses to the at-issue discovery be served by April 14, 2023. (Mafud Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. E-F.) 9 As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff has not provided a single response to any of 10 Defendant Walmart’s discovery requests or produce any documents and/or things. (Mafud Decl. ¶ 11 10.) Plaintiff has had more than half a year to serve her discovery responses. That is more than 12 sufficient time to respond to discovery. 13 OTHAGAN MEYER As a result of Plaintiff’s willful refusal to engage in the spirit of discovery, Defendants are 14 unable to proceed with meaningful discovery and prepare their defense. The information requested ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS 15 is necessary in order to effectively prosecute this action and prepare for trial. Accordingly, 16 Defendants are forced to file the present motion seeking terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for 17 her willful, nine month long abuse of the discovery process and utter failure to participate in 18 Defendant’s discovery efforts and advancement of the case. 19 20 III. LEGAL AUTHORITY 21 Terminating sanctions may be imposed for misuse of the discovery process. Cal. Code.Civ. 22 Pro.§ 2023.030(d); Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199,207. Section 23 2023.030(d) states: 24 The Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: 25 1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in 26 the misuse of the discovery process. 27 2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is 28 obeyed. 3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. 4 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 1 4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party. 2 Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery 3 process; so is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Id.) 4 A court may properly take into account [Plaintiff’s] intent to thwart discovery and 5 evasive tactics. (Housing Authority of the City of Alameda v. Gomez (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d 6 366, 373 [terminating sanction upheld where “the trial court could justifiably conclude that 7 defendant had no intention of being deposed and would continue to engage in evasive tactics 8 toward that end”].) Much like in Housing Authority, the present Plaintiff has demonstrated a 9 “disobedience of a court order.”Id.; see also Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal. 10 App. 4th 1611, 1619 (affirming terminating sanction where (1) defendants chose to ignore the 11 many formal and informal attempts by plaintiff to secure discovery responses; and (2) 12 defendants failed to comply with the trial court's order compelling discovery). 13 OTHAGAN MEYER Much like in Collision & Kaplan, the Plaintiff has plainly ignored discovery requests 14 and Defendant’s attempts to advance this matter. Ultimately, the trial court holds the inherent ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS 15 power to control the litigation before it and the discretion to dismiss the action for deliberate 16 and egregious misconduct such as that of the Plaintiff in the present case. ( Stephen Slesinger, 17 Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 736, 762 & 764.) 18 IV. ARGUMENT 19 20 A. Terminating Sanctions Are Warranted in This Case 21 California discovery law provides for a range of penalties for “misuse of the discovery 22 process.” (Civil Code § 2023.030; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal. 23 4th 1, 12.) That misuse includes: 24 • “Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” (C.C.P. § 25 2023.010(d)) - i.e., failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests; 26 • “Disobeying a court order to provide discovery” (§ 2023.0I0(g))- i.e., failing to respond to 27 Defendant’s motion to compel discovery as ordered. 28 In the present case, Plaintiff has demonstrated a complete disregard for the authority of the court and for her legal obligations. She has unquestionably avoided her discovery 5 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 1 obligations in this case-- principally, her failure to respond to Defendant Walmart’s discovery 2 requests and this Court’s January 26, 2023 Order. Meanwhile, Defendants have complied in 3 good faith with its own discovery obligations and has attempted to work with Plaintiff to remedy 4 her discovery abuses. Accordingly, Defendants move for terminating sanctions dismissing 5 Plaintiff’s complaint and this instant case with prejudice. 6 VI. CONCLUSION 7 For the forgeoing reasons, the Court should grant the motion by granting terminating 8 sanctions and dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s respective complaint. 9 10 11 DATED: April 19, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 12 O’HAGAN MEYER 13 OTHAGAN MEYER 14 By: ____________________________________ THEODORE C. PETERS, ESQ. ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS 15 BESSIE A. MAFUD, ESQ. 16 Attorneys for Defendants, Walmart Inc. and Neil Batarseh 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Sabra Harris vs. Walmart Inc., et al. 2 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV49550 3 4 I am over the age of eighteen years old and not a party to the within action. I am employed by O’Hagan Meyer, whose business address is 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 5 300, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. 6 On April 19, 2023, I served the below referenced document(s) on the parties reflected on 7 the included service list: 8 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, MEMORANDUM OF 9 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 [BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6 I caused such ~ 11 document(s) to be electronically transmitted to the email addresses of the parties listed on the Service List pursuant to agreement with counsel for the parties to 12 receive service by e-mail. 13 OTHAGAN MEYER [BY MAIL SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1013 I caused the document(s) □ 14 described above to be deposited for processing in the mailroom in our office. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practices of collection and processing ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS 15 correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U. S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Hermosa Beach, California, in the 16 ordinary course of business. 17 [BY OVERNIGHT SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1013 I enclosed the □ 18 document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above. I placed the envelope or 19 package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 20 [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] – Pursuant to CCP § 1011 - I caused such □ 21 document(s) to be hand delivered to the addressee(s) so indicated. 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. 25 Executed on April 19, 2023, at Hermosa Beach, California. 26 27 Debbie Ristovski 28 7 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Sabra Harris vs. Walmart Inc., et al. 3 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV49550 4 Erick B. Novik Counsel for Plaintiff 5 Kevin Salute Sabra Harris Hanz Benavides (paralegal) 6 NOVIK LAW GROUP 16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite 508 7 Encino, CA 91436 8 Tel: 818.305.6041 | Fax: 818.305.6042 Email: erick@noviklawgroup.com 9 Email: kevin@noviklawgroup.com Email: hanz@noviklawgroup.com 10 11 12 13 OTHAGAN MEYER 14 ATTORNEYS .&. ADVISORS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS