MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT DUE TO FAILURE TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
June 16, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 7 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 2 24-CIV-01214 ELEONORA ARGUELLO ESQUIVEL VS. ROSALBA LLAMAS
ELEONORA ARGUELLO ESQUIVEL APRIL LIN WALSH ROSALBA LLAMAS PRO SE
MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT DUE TO FAILURE TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court DENIES without prejudice plaintiff Eleonora Arguello Esquivel’s motion to strike answer and enter default for failure to provide responses to interrogatories, document requests and request for sanctions.
There is no proof of service in the court file. The moving party is required to file a proof of service showing service of the moving papers “no later than five days before the time appointed for the hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).) Defendant did not receive proper notice and, therefore, the court must deny the motion because it lacks jurisdiction to hear it. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205 [court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed].) The court informed counsel for plaintiff at the April 28, 2026 omission of a proof of service in the file. Despite the court’s statement and plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that a proof of service would be filed, no proof of service has been filed.
Moreover, even if there is proof of service, the court would deny the motion. As plaintiff recognizes, while a party fails to respond to discovery, the court has numerous options. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 and 2030.300, if a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to interrogatories, the court may impose any of the various sanctions prescribed under Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 and 2023.030. Specifically, a court may impose an evidence sanction “by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introduction designated matters in evidence.” (Code Civ.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).) Additionally, a court may impose a terminating sanction by one of several orders, including “[a]n order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1). Plaintiff is seeking a terminating sanction without seeking any lesser sanctions first. (Trial courts are to take an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and leading up to the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Atlas v.
Davidyan (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1086, 1095.) Plaintiff has not made a showing why terminating sanctions should be imposed without first imposing other sanctions, e.g. additional monetary sanctions or evidence/issue sanctions.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s
June 16, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 8 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.