Motion for Terminating Sanctions
9. 30-2025-01511451 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion for Leave to Intervene Foote vs. Durham School Services, L.P. Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers’ Compensation Agency moves for an order granting leave of Court to file a Complaint in Intervention.
Unopposed Motion is granted. Civ Code§387(a); Ca Lab Code§3852, 3853.
Complaint in Intervention to be separately filed and served.
Moving Party to give notice.
11. 30-2024-01371125 1. Motion for Terminating Sanctions
Bicknell vs. Hill Defendant Hill Commercial Investments, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for terminating sanctions or, Commercial Investments, in the alternative for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ attorney, Steven Tamer, together Inc with an order compelling full compliance with all prior Court orders.
CCP section 2023.030 outlines the various sanctions that may be imposed “against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process,” including: monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, a terminating sanction, and a contempt sanction. These sanctions may be imposed by the court, “after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Among other acts, disobeying “a court order to provide discovery” and “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” are misuses of the discovery process and conduct that is subject to sanctions. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d), (g).) “Once a party or witness has been ordered to attend a deposition, or to answer discovery, or to produce documents, more severe sanctions are available for continued refusal to make discovery.” (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial at ¶ 8:2145 [emphasis in original].)
Many courts have found that terminating sanctions should be imposed only if the court has found a willful failure to comply. (See
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?”
Nevertheless, terminating sanctions “are to be used sparingly, only when the trial court concludes that lesser sanctions would not bring about the compliance of the offending party.” (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) The burden of showing sanctions are not justified (i.e., that the responding party did not willfully fail to perform) lies with the responding party. (See Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 201.)
Here, Plaintiffs Darwin Z. Bicknell and Lissa M. Bareno were ordered on April 16, 2026 to appear for depositions, produce all documents described in the deposition notices (unless a privilege applies), and to, jointly and severally with their attorney of record, pay a monetary sanction of $800 within 30 days to Defendant’s counsel. (ROA 273.)
On May 14, 2026, Plaintiffs were ordered to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, without objections, within 45 days. They were also
ordered, jointly and severally with their attorney of record, to pay $1,200 in monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.
As of the hearing date of this motion, it appears that only Plaintiff Lissa M. Bareno has sat for her deposition. Defendant’s counsel declares that Ms. Bareno produced documents and responded to Form Interrogatories, but does not address the Special Interrogatories, written responses to Requests for Production or monetary sanctions. (Tamer Decl. ¶¶3-7.)
Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Bicknell is not refusing to appear for his deposition, and has offered to appear by video, but that was unacceptable to Defendant. Mr. Bicknell claims to be out of the country, but is willing to appear for his deposition in August. The opposition does not address Mr. Bicknell’s responses to written discovery or payment of monetary sanctions. (Tamer Decl. ¶¶ 8-15.) Nor does counsel indicate that counsel has paid either monetary sanction. (See, generally, Tamer Decl.)
The Court is troubled by this failure to comply with its previous orders, without sufficient explanation. The Court nonetheless does not find that the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions is justified at this juncture. The Court will instead impose a lesser monetary sanction of $2,025 (4.5 hrs at $450/hr) against Plaintiffs’ attorney, Steven Tamer. Sanctions are due and payable to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days of this order.
Additionally, the Court orders Plaintiffs to fully comply with this Court’s April 16 and May 14 orders. Should Plaintiffs fail to comply with those orders within 30 days, the Court will consider granting a subsequent defense motion for terminating sanctions.
Defendant to give notice.
12. 30-2024-01443133 1. Case Management Conference 2. 2 Motions to Compel ESC-TOY LTD. Vs. Maschoff Brennan Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (ROA #158) Gilmore & Israelsen, Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (ROA #157) PLLC Given the late filed Oppositions and supporting documents, filed 8/10/26, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on these 2 motions to 8/20/26 at 1:30pm in C34. Any reply briefing in response to the opposition documents to be filed by 8/14/26.
No additional briefing.
Clerk to give notice.
13. 30-2024-01379003 1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication Dib vs. Daher There are two motions for summary judgment on calendar: one brought by Defendant Doran Andry (“Defendant Andry”) and one brought by Defendant 11WINDS11, LLC (“Defendant 11Winds”)
Defendant Andry and Defendant 11Winds both move for an order granting summary judgment in their favor on all five causes of action asserted in the First Amended Complaint, which include the: (1) first cause of action for fraudulent transfers in violation of Civil Code section