On October 21, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lewis, Niasha,
and
Apple Socal, Llc. A Business Entity,
Does 1-100,
for PI personal injury not MV
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Raymond Ghemezian (Bar Number l98777)
Raymond thrmczian, A Professional Law Corporation (\04
3435 Wilshirc Boulevard, Suite 1800
Los Angela, California 900] 0
Tel: (323) 900-5800
/
963:1
”’3‘?!” KA’
DEPUTY
”u
Fax: (323) 900-5801 LAURA BEUVK,
cmqaubuw...
Anomey for Plaintiffs
NIASHA LEWIS and YANIECE BALLOU
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NlASHA LEWIS, a minor by and through her CASE No. ClVDSl93l395
ian ad litem, YANIECE BALLOU, an
Individual, A MINOR,
PLAINTIFF NIASHA LEWIS’,
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
Plaintifi's, MOTION FOR IMPOSITION 0F
TBRMINATING SANCTIONS OR
vs. EVIDENCE SANCTIONS OR
MONETARY SANCTIONS:
APPLE SOCAL, LLC, a business entity; and MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
DOES through 100, inclusive,
l AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION 0F
RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN
Defendants.
DATE: November 17, 2022
TIME: 8:30 AM.
uhwfigcogsamawN—c
DEPT: 8-33
TRIAL DATE: February 2 l , 2023
TO THE COURT, TO DEFENDANT AND T0 ITS RESPECTIVE COUNSEL 0F RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintifi‘NlASHA LEWIS, a minor, submits the
“
following Opposition to Defendant’s Motion Seeking the Imposition ofTerminating or
DATED: November 3, 2022 '
OFESSIONAL LAW
26 Ii
n17
Attorneys for
27 NIASHA L . ’
IS, a—minor
28
l!
OPPOSITION T0 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
f
This is an action for personal injuries.
Defendant’s Motion is directed solely at Plaintifi‘NlASHA LEWIS, a minor.
©flfl¢méWN~
Throughout this action, Defendant has claimed that the only party to this action in
I NIASHA LEWIS. Defendant obtained a Court Order to YANIECE BALLOU to appear as
PlaintiffNIASl-IA LEWIS’ Guardian Ad Litcm.
A guardian ad [item is not a party to the action. J. W. v. Superior Court (1993) l7
Cal.App.4th 958, 964; McClintoc/c v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App,4th 540, 549.
. It is the court’s duty to ensure that the minor’s interact are protecwd. McClinhock, 2 I 9
Cal.App.4th at 549. Thus, this court should not sanction Plaintifi'NlASHA LEWIS, a minor, for
the alleged misconduct of her Guardian Ad Litem.
NN—n————————u—n
A court may not issue a terminating sanction against a party for the failure ofa witness to
comply with a court order. See C.C.P. section 2023.030(d); see Lo: Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390-392, —cntry of default as terminating sanction justified based
on wwillful failure to comply with order compelling production of documents identified at
deposition; J. W. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. afNew York, Inc. (201 8) 29 Cal.App.5th
l I42, l 170-1 l7l—-terminating sanctions warranted where court gave D notice it would likely
Fl
grant tenninating sanctions afier 4-day period if D did not start producing documents and despite
warning, D did not comply with nearly year-old discovery order so “it was reasonable to
conclude that lesser sanctions would be ineffective” in motivating D to comply]
A court may not issue a monetary sanction against a party for a witness’ failure to comply
NNNNNN
n
with a court order. See C.C.P. section 2023.030(a); see Marriage ofNiklas (I989) 2| I Cal.App.
3d 28, 37-38.
Defendant’s Motion sacks to impose terminating sanctions against PlaintifleASHA
2
OPPOSITION T0 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Document Filed Date
November 04, 2022
Case Filing Date
October 21, 2019
Category
PI personal injury not MV
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Raymond Ghemezian (Bar Number l98777) Raymond thrmczian, A Professional Law Corporation (\04 3435 Wilshirc Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angela, California 900] 0 Tel: (323) 900-5800 / 963:1 ”’3‘?!” KA’ DEPUTY ”u Fax: (323) 900-5801 LAURA BEUVK, cmqaubuw... Anomey for Plaintiffs NIASHA LEWIS and YANIECE BALLOU SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO NlASHA LEWIS, a minor by and through her CASE No. ClVDSl93l395 ian ad litem, YANIECE BALLOU, an Individual, A MINOR, PLAINTIFF NIASHA LEWIS’, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S Plaintifi's, MOTION FOR IMPOSITION 0F TBRMINATING SANCTIONS OR vs. EVIDENCE SANCTIONS OR MONETARY SANCTIONS: APPLE SOCAL, LLC, a business entity; and MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOES through 100, inclusive, l AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION 0F RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN Defendants. DATE: November 17, 2022 TIME: 8:30 AM. uhwfigcogsamawN—c DEPT: 8-33 TRIAL DATE: February 2 l , 2023 TO THE COURT, TO DEFENDANT AND T0 ITS RESPECTIVE COUNSEL 0F RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintifi‘NlASHA LEWIS, a minor, submits the “ following Opposition to Defendant’s Motion Seeking the Imposition ofTerminating or DATED: November 3, 2022 ' OFESSIONAL LAW 26 Ii n17 Attorneys for 27 NIASHA L . ’ IS, a—minor 28 l! OPPOSITION T0 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS f This is an action for personal injuries. Defendant’s Motion is directed solely at Plaintifi‘NlASHA LEWIS, a minor. ©flfl¢méWN~ Throughout this action, Defendant has claimed that the only party to this action in I NIASHA LEWIS. Defendant obtained a Court Order to YANIECE BALLOU to appear as PlaintiffNIASl-IA LEWIS’ Guardian Ad Litcm. A guardian ad [item is not a party to the action. J. W. v. Superior Court (1993) l7 Cal.App.4th 958, 964; McClintoc/c v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App,4th 540, 549. . It is the court’s duty to ensure that the minor’s interact are protecwd. McClinhock, 2 I 9 Cal.App.4th at 549. Thus, this court should not sanction Plaintifi'NlASHA LEWIS, a minor, for the alleged misconduct of her Guardian Ad Litem. NN—n————————u—n A court may not issue a terminating sanction against a party for the failure ofa witness to comply with a court order. See C.C.P. section 2023.030(d); see Lo: Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390-392, —cntry of default as terminating sanction justified based on wwillful failure to comply with order compelling production of documents identified at deposition; J. W. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. afNew York, Inc. (201 8) 29 Cal.App.5th l I42, l 170-1 l7l—-terminating sanctions warranted where court gave D notice it would likely Fl grant tenninating sanctions afier 4-day period if D did not start producing documents and despite warning, D did not comply with nearly year-old discovery order so “it was reasonable to conclude that lesser sanctions would be ineffective” in motivating D to comply] A court may not issue a monetary sanction against a party for a witness’ failure to comply NNNNNN n with a court order. See C.C.P. section 2023.030(a); see Marriage ofNiklas (I989) 2| I Cal.App. 3d 28, 37-38. Defendant’s Motion sacks to impose terminating sanctions against PlaintifleASHA 2 OPPOSITION T0 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS