Crystal Hernandez et al vs Alan Moelleken et al

"In exercising this discretion, a variety of factors may be relevant, including, 1) the time which has elapsed since interrogatories were served, 2) whether the party served was previously given a voluntary extension of time, 3) the number of interrogatories propounded, 4) whether the unanswered questions sought information which was difficult to obtain, 5) whether the answers supplied were evasive and incomplete, 6) the number of questions which remain unanswered, 7) whether the questions which remain unanswered are material to a particular claim or defense, 8) whether the answering party has acted in good faith, and with reasonable diligence, 9) the existence of prior orders compelling discovery and the answering party's response thereto, 10) whether the party was unable to comply with the previous order of the court, 11) whether an order allowing more time to answer would enable the answering party to supply the necessary information, and, 12) whether a sanction short of dismissal or default would be appropriate to the dereliction." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at pp. 796, 797.)

"Of course, each case must be decided on its own facts and, while lesser sanctions are normally imposed, the ultimate sanction is permissible where the litigant persists in refusing to comply with his discovery obligations." (Ibid.)

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.)

A terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful, and the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

Here, applying an incremental approach, the court finds it is premature to issue terminating sanctions. No lesser sanctions have yet been imposed because they were not requested in conjunction with the underlying motions to compel. Terminating sanctions would not be proper as a first sanction and will not be imposed at this time.

Monetary Sanctions

The Lissauers seek monetary sanctions of $6,137.00 for fees incurred in preparation and filing of the present motion.

"The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030, subd. (a).)

" ' "Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply [with a valid discovery order] . . . and (2) the failure must be willful . . ." ' " [Citations]." (Kayne v. The Grande Holdings Limited (2011) 198 Cal.App.4 th 1470, 1474.)

Here, there is no dispute that plaintiff failed to comply with the court orders. Despite her stated excuses, the court finds that the refusal to comply was willful. Plaintiff was given numerous opportunities to comply with the court orders even after the deadline had expired.

The Lissauers' counsel declares that his hourly rate is $295, that he spent 16.6 hours preparing the motion, that he anticipates an additional four hours reviewing opposition, preparing a reply, and participating in the hearing on the motion. The $60.00 filing fee is also requested to be reimbursed. Based on the court's experience, the court finds that the claimed time is somewhat excessive. The court will award the Lissauers the reasonable amount of $3,000.00 in sanctions for the necessity of bringing the motion.

Tentative Ruling: Jane Doe et al vs Cottage Health

Tentative Ruling: Jane Doe et al vs Cottage Health

Case Number 23CV03679

Case Type Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/22/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings Motion: Approval

Tentative Ruling

On November 14, 2025, plaintiffs Laureen Clavecilla, Steve Crozier, and three other individuals whose identities are sealed due to confidentiality concerns, filed an unopposed motion for an order granting preliminary approval of a proposed Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiffs and defendant Cottage Health.

On March 20, 2026, the court issued a minute order denying that motion, without prejudice, and continued the matter to April 24, 2026, upon plaintiffs' request to allow time for the parties to finalize an amended settlement agreement and for plaintiffs to file a revised motion for preliminary approval of any amended agreement.

On April 16, the court signed and filed an order granting a joint stipulation by the parties to continue the hearing to May 22, 2026.

The court's records show that plaintiffs have not filed any revised motion for preliminary approval of an amended settlement agreement. Therefore, the court will, at this stage of the proceedings, order the matter off-calendar, without prejudice to the filing of any future motion for preliminary approval of any amended settlement agreement that may be finalized by the parties.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to give notice of the court's ruling herein.

Tentative Ruling: Crystal Hernandez et al vs Alan Moelleken et al

Tentative Ruling: Crystal Hernandez et al vs Alan Moelleken et al

Case Number 24CV00261