Edith Bernal vs Foster Poultry Farms, LLC, et al.

24CV-03398 Edith Bernal vs Foster Poultry Farms, LLC, et al.

Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions CCP 2031.300 (C), 2023.010 (G), & 2023.030 (A)-(D)

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Bernal has failed to comply with this court’s August 7, 2025, order.

The request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500 are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within fifteen (15) days of this court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to comply with this court’s discovery order entered on August 7, 2025, within ten (10) days of being served with this order.

The request for terminating sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Other than the delay of the case due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this court’s August 7, 2025, order, the court finds that there is no prejudice to Defendant in the absence of the discovery responses that are the subject of the court’s prior order. As a result, the request for terminating sanctions is premature, and termination would be punitive rather than remedial. (Morgan v. Ransom (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 664, 669-670.)

However, where lesser sanctions have been ordered, such as an order compelling compliance with discovery requests, and the party persists in disobeying, the party does so “at his own risk, knowing that such a refusal provided the court with statutory authority to impose other sanctions” such as dismissing the action. (Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1583.)