KAREN LICONA ALVARADO, et al. v. DALIA SALAZAR

On April 17, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motions.

As of the date of this hearing Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions.

Terminating Sanctions

The Court, “after notice to any affected party . . . and after opportunity for hearing,” may impose terminating and/or monetary sanctions for misuses of the discovery process. (C.C.P. §2023.030(a) and (d).)

Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (C.C.P. §§2023.010(d), (g).)

C.C.P. §2030.290(c) provides, in part,”[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, . . ..

If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7.” (C.C.P. §2030.290(c).)

“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.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)

When deciding whether to impose terminating sanctions, courts generally weigh three factors: (1) whether the party subject to the sanction acted willfully, (2) the detriment to the party seeking discovery, and (3) the number of formal and informal unsuccessful attempts to obtain discovery. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702; Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

Nonmonetary sanctions require evidence of willful violations of discovery orders or a history of egregious abuses of discovery. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486.)

A prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions is willful disobedience of a court order. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403.)

By requiring a violation of a discovery order before imposing nonmonetary sanctions, California courts can be sure that the offending party does not intend to comply with the discovery request. (Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1581.)

?[A] terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.” (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Discussion

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions on the grounds Plaintiffs have willfully ignored this Court’s December 16, 2025, Order. (Motion, pgs. 4-5.)

Here, terminating sanctions are appropriate because Defendant served FROG and RFP in October 2024 and Plaintiffs still have not provided responses, notwithstanding this Court’s order to provide such responses. (See 12/16/25 Minute Order.)

Plaintiffs have provided no reason why they have not complied with this Court’s order, since Plaintiffs’ responses were due on or before February 17, 2026.

Plaintiffs’ failure to provide responses to FROG and RFP is willful disobedience of this Court’s order and justifies striking Plaintiffs? Complaint and dismissing Plaintiffs’ action. (C.C.P. §§2023.030(d)(1), (3).)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted.

The Court strikes Plaintiffs? Complaint and dismisses the instant action, without prejudice.

Monetary Sanctions

In addition to or in lieu of any other sanction, the court may order the disobedient party or counsel responsible or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the failure to obey (including fees on the sanctions motion). (C.C.P. §2023.030(a).)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $412.50 against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record for attorneys’ fees to prepare the instant motion.

Defendant’s counsel declares his hourly rate is $250.00/hour, and that he spent 1.0 hour preparing this motion, and he anticipates another 1.5 hours reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, as well as appearing at the hearing. (Decl. of Aho ¶8.)

In light of the fact that the instant motion is unopposed, Defendant cannot recover costs for hours that were not reasonably incurred.

The Court determines Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable based on the experience of the Court.

Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced amount of $310.00, calculated as follows: ($250.00/hour x 1 hour) + $60 filing fee = $310.00

The Court only imposes sanctions against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, since the notice of the motion does not name Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs is granted in the reduced amount of $310.00.

Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Conclusion

Defendant’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs is granted.

The Court strikes Plaintiffs? Complaint and dismisses the instant matter without prejudice.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $310.00.

Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated: May _____, 2026

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 25STCV32945

Hearing Date: May 18, 2026

Dept: 729

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 729

TENTATIVE RULING

FREDRICK DOUGLAS STEEN, vs. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al.