Nguyen v. Sola CA3

Filed 5/2/23 Nguyen v. Sola CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

BINH VAN NGUYEN, C096187

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV- UCC-2020-0003140) v.

RICHARD G. SOLA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Binh Van Nguyen appeals from an order dismissing his case as a sanction for failing to respond to discovery requests and failing to comply with the trial court’s order compelling responses. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) refusing to consider his late-filed opposition to the motion for sanctions filed by respondents Richard G. Sola and Donna L. Sola and (2) dismissing his case as a sanction for misuse of the discovery process. We conclude the trial court acted within the scope of its discretion in both instances and affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant, representing himself, filed a complaint on March 3, 2020, alleging respondents had locked him out of his car repair business, thereby converting and causing damage to his property and causing emotional distress. On June 1, 2021, respondents, also representing themselves, served form interrogatories and document demands on appellant at the address listed on his complaint. The form interrogatories and document demands asked appellant for information and documents evidencing his claimed losses and emotional distress. On July 20, 2021, respondents filed a motion asserting appellant had not responded to the discovery requests and seeking an order compelling responses and awarding monetary sanctions. Appellant did not file an opposition to the motion, did not request oral argument in response to the trial court’s tentative ruling, and did not appear at the hearing. On August 26, 2021, the trial court granted the motion and ordered appellant to serve complete, verified responses to both sets of discovery requests, without objections, within 30 days of service of the order. Respondents served notice of the order on September 23, 2021, at the address listed on the complaint. On October 13, 2021, respondents filed a motion seeking to continue trial because appellant was not required to respond to their discovery requests until October 23, 2021, which would not leave enough time for another discovery motion, if necessary, before the November 29, 2021, trial date. On October 18, 2021, appellant filed and served a change of address form. On November 5, 2021, appellant filed a response indicating he also wanted to continue trial, claiming he had not received respondents’ discovery requests because the address on his complaint was “the wrong address,” and promising to respond once respondents sent the requests to his new address. On November 19, 2021, the trial court denied the motion, but it ordered the respondents to re-serve their discovery requests and warned appellant that he “must respond to [respondents’] discovery if he wants to proceed with the case.”