CORDERO vs MOODY & MASONRY CONCRETE

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS CVRI2504928 SMITH vs CRAINE COUNSEL FOR TENESHIA GAYNELL SMITH Tentative Ruling:

No tentative ruling; the Court requests appearances, either in person or telephonically.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CORDERO vs MOODY & MOTION FOR TERMINATING

MASONRY CONCRETE SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL Tentative Ruling:

The Court DENIES the motion for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff ultimately provided verifications and with no trial date set, Defendant fails to establish any prejudice, let alone a level of prejudice that would warrant terminating sanctions. The Court GRANTS the alternative request for additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,977.5 (3.5 hours x $565/hr) against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Brian Angelini.

Pursuant to CCP § 2023.030, the court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a)-(d).) The court has broad discretion to issue discovery sanctions where: (1) there was a misuse of discovery and (2) the failure was willful. (Kayne v. The Grande Holdings Limited (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1474; Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1102.) Discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Young v.

Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 118.) “The sanction of peremptory dismissal, without consideration of the merits, is fundamentally unjust unless the conduct of a [party] is such that the delinquency interferes with the court's mission of seeking truth and justice.” (Morgan v. Ransom (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 664, 670.) This requires the party requesting sanctions to show prejudice. (Id.)

A decision to order a terminating sanction should not be made lightly unless the violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse and evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

The Court finds that because Plaintiff ultimately, albeit very belatedly, provided verifications, terminating sanctions are unwarranted. There is no trial date currently and Defendant does not establish any prejudice due to the delayed verifications. Defendant now has the verifications and objection-less responses.

But in terms of misuse of the discovery process, it is clear the verifications came only after Defendant filed this motion. Plaintiff counsel’s vague references to “logistical issues” fail to justify noncompliance with the Court’s May 2026 Order. Consequently, the Court GRANTS the alternative request for additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,977.5 (3.5 hours x $565/hr) against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Brian Angelini. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (g).)