Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02389/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02389-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAY AVENUE PROPERTIES, LLC, 

LA JOLLA SPA MD, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-2389-GPC(WVG)

ORDER AFTER ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE HEARING RECOMMENDING

TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST

PLAINTIFF LA JOLLA SPA MD,

INC.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 

(DOC. NO. 49)

On January 17, 2013, the Court held an Order To Show Cause

(“OSC”) Hearing regarding why it should not recommend that terminating sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff La Jolla Spa MD, Inc. (“LJ

Spa”). Leon Campbell (“Campbell”) appeared on behalf of Plaintiff LJ

Spa. Aaron Agness appeared on behalf of Travelers Property Casualty

Company of America (“Travelers”). Edward J. McIntyre and Meredith

King were sworn and testified at the OSC hearing.

The Court, having reviewed the history of this case, the

documents filed by counsel and by Mr. McIntyre, the testimony of Mr.

11cv2389 1

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McIntyre and Ms. King and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY RECOMMENDS

THAT TERMINATING SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED AGAINST Plaintiff LJ Spa.

I

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2011, Plaintiffs filed this action against

Travelers alleging that Travelers committed breach of contract, bad

faith, fraud, and negligence.

On October 13, 2011, Travelers removed this action to this

Court.

On November 3, 2011, Travelers filed a Motion To Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

On January 10, 2012, LJ Spa’s first attorney filed a Motion

To Withdraw as attorney of record citing a breakdown in the

attorney-client relationship and irreconcilable differences. On

January 19, 2012, the Motion To Withdraw was granted.

On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff’s current counsel, Campbell,

filed a Declaration on his own behalf (“Campbell Declaration”), in

which he represented to the Court that he was retained by Diane York

(“York”), LJ Spa’s principal, to assist in finding substitute

counsel for Plaintiffs. Campbell stated: “I do not regard myself as

sufficiently experienced in insurance bad faith actions to substitute myself as counsel,” and “(I)t is the intention of the Plaintiff

to continue with diligence to retain new counsel.” (Campbell

Declaration at 1, para. 2, 2, para. 4).

On January 26, 2012, the District Judge assigned to this case

recognized that the Campbell Declaration had been filed, but noted

that the Motion To Withdraw had already been granted, and rejected

the Campbell Declaration as moot.

11cv2389 2

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On February 3, 2012, Campbell filed an “Appearance of

Counsel” on behalf of LJ Spa.

On February 28, 2012, the District Judge assigned to this

case granted Travelers’ Motion To Dismiss with leave to amend. The

Order Granting The Motion To Dismiss noted that the Motion was

granted for Plaintiffs’ failure to file opposition papers, pursuant

to S.D. Cal. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). The Order also noted that the

hearing on the Motion was extended for five weeks to accommodate

Plaintiffs’ search for new counsel, but no new counsel entered an

appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs.

On March 26, 2012, Travelers filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’

Complaint.

On May 21, 2012, the Court conducted an Early Neutral

Evaluation Conference (“ENE”). The case did not settle at the ENE.

Therefore, the Court ordered, inter alia, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26, that a Joint Discovery Plan be submitted to the Court by June

21, 2012, that Initial Disclosures shall be completed by June 25,

2012, and that a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) shall be held on

June 29, 2012.

On June 29, 2012, the Court conducted a CMC. Campbell did not

appear at the CMC on behalf of LJ Spa. However, LJ Spa constructively participated in formulating the Joint Discovery Plan, but the

Joint Discovery Plan was not signed by Campbell. Instead, the Joint

Discovery Plan was signed by attorney Andrew P.P. Dunk (“Dunk”) as

“Attorneys for Plaintiff La Jolla Spa MD, Inc.” Although Dunk signed

as the attorney for LJ Spa, he did not (and has not) entered an

appearance in this action. Since neither Campbell nor Dunk appeared

at the CMC, the Court set an OSC hearing for July 31, 2012.

11cv2389 3

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On July 12, 2012, Travelers propounded Interrogatories and

Requests for Production of Documents on LJ Spa.

On July 17, 2012, Dunk filed a “Declaration of Counsel,”

(“Dunk Declaration”) that explained that at the time he signed the

Joint Discovery Plan, he “was in negotiations to become counsel of

record for... Plaintiffs in this matter,” but that he had “not yet

been formally retained.” (Dunk Declaration at paras. 3, 4).

On July 24, 2012, Travelers filed a Response to the OSC. In

the Response, Travelers informed the Court that Plaintiffs’ Initial

Disclosures had not been served and noted Plaintiffs’ violations of

three Court orders: (1)failure to appear at the CMC, (2) failure to

serve Initial Disclosures, and (3) failure to respond to the OSC.

On July 31, 2012, the Court held an OSC hearing for Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to appear at the CMC. At the OSC hearing,

the Court ordered LJ Spa to serve its Initial Disclosures by August

3, 2012 and to serve responses to Travelers’ interrogatories and

Requests for Production of Documents by August 15, 2012.

On August 13, 2012, LJ Spa served on Travelers its responses

to Travelers’ discovery requests. However, the responses were

simple, improper, boilerplate objections citing irrelevance of the

requested information, and redundancy in that the information

requested had been previously provided. Despite these responses, LJ

Spa had not produced any documents in this litigation.1/ Further, the

discovery requests to which LJ Spa responded that the information

sought was irrelevant, was clearly relevant to LJ Spa’s claims in

this action. 

1/

It appeared to the Court that prior to filing this action, LJ Spa had

provided some documents to Travelers, but the documents were not identified.

11cv2389 4

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 4 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For example, Travelers’ Interrogatory No. 1 asks LJ Spa to

state the name and location(s) of all damages to the subject

property that LJ Spa contends was destroyed by Mitchel Goldman as

alleged in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. LJ Spa’s response was:

“Object. Irrelevant.” (Declaration of Aaron Agness in Support of

Defendant Travelers Motion To Compel Regarding La Jolla Spa MD,

Inc.’s Responses to Discovery Requests, “Agness Dec.,” Exhibit 4 at

36-37). Travelers’ Interrogatory No. 2 asks LJ Spa to state the

dollar amount of the damage it contends was caused by Mitchel

Goldman. LJ Spa’s Response was “Object. Irrelevant.” (Agness Dec.,

Exh. 4 at 37). Travelers’ Request for Production of Documents No. 3

asks LJ Spa to produce all documents that relate to, or evidence the

dollar amount of the physical damage to the subject property as a

result of the incident. LJ Spa’s response was “Object as Irrelevant.” Travelers’ Request for Production of Documents No. 6 asks LJ

Spa to produce all documents that refer to, relate to or evidence

the amount of damage LJ Spa sustained as a result of the incident. 

LJ Spa’s Response was : “Object, redundant, already provided.”

(Agness Dec., Exh. 2 at 18).

On August 21, 2012, the Court held a Status Conference in

this action. At the Status Conference, the Court ordered counsel, by

August 31, 2012, to meet and confer regarding LJ Spa’s responses to

Travelers’ discovery requests. Also, the Court ordered LJ Spa to

provide to Travelers specificity as to where allegedly previously

produced documents that were responsive to Travelers’ discovery

requests could be located.

On August 23, 2012, LJ Spa’s and Travelers’ counsel met and

conferred by telephone regarding LJ Spa’s discovery responses.

11cv2389 5

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 5 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Campbell ended the telephone conference before the meet and confer

efforts were completed. Campbell told Travelers’ counsel that he

would get back to Travelers’ counsel. However, Campbell did not

reinitiate contact with Travelers’ counsel nor did he supplement LJ

Spa’s discovery responses.

On September 13, 2012, Travelers’ counsel wrote to Campbell

regarding LJ Spa’s outstanding discovery responses. Campbell did not

respond to this communication, nor did he provide supplemental

responses to Travelers’ discovery requests.

On November 8, 2012, Travelers filed a Motion to Compel

Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests, Request for Terminating

Sanctions or Money Sanctions.

On December 6, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Traveler’s

Motion to Compel Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests, Request

for Terminating Sanctions or Money Sanctions. At the hearing,

Campbell informed the Court that he and York needed access to LJ

Spa’s documents in LJ Spa’s offices in order to respond to Traveler’s discovery requests. On that same date, the Court issued an

Order stating that LJ Spa was to contact the Trustee of the Fay

Avenue bankruptcy estate, or whomever had the authority to allow LJ

Spa access to LJ Spa’s offices (see below) for the purposes of

responding to Traveler’s discovery requests. Also, the Court’s Order

stated that on or before December 14, 2012, LJ Spa shall serve on

Travelers complete, substantial and meaningful responses, without

objections, to Traveler’s interrogatories, and to produce to

Travelers the documents it had requested. Further, the Court’s Order

stated that LJ Spa was to pay Travelers, by January 4, 2013, the sum

of $3,565.00 in sanctions for Travelers’ fees and expenses in making

11cv2389 6

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 6 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Motion to Compel.2/ Additionally, in the Order, the Court warned

LJ Spa that its failure to abide by court orders, the Court’s Local

Rules, and its discovery obligations in this case, may subject it to

dismissal of its case. (Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Regarding Plaintiff LJ Spa’s Response

To Discovery Requests, And For Sanctions or Money Sanctions,

December 6, 2012).

On December 11, 2012, Edward J. McIntyre, filed a Declaration

on his own behalf In Relation To Pending Discovery Issues Between 

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and La Jolla Spa MD,

Inc. The Declaration states in pertinent part:

1. Mr. McIntyre represents BioFilm, Inc. (“BioFilm”).

2. Fay Avenue (Plaintiff in this action) is a debtor in a

Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Fay Avenue and other Diane Yorkrelated companies, are also parties to several actions in San Diego

Superior Court involving BioFilm.

3. BioFilm was permitted by the Bankruptcy Court to foreclose, and did foreclose, on 7630 Fay Avenue, La Jolla, California

(“the building”). On October 19, 2012, the San Diego County Sheriff

evicted York and all of her companies from the building.

4. Until October 19, 2012, York and Campbell had unfettered

access to any document or other business records that were in the

building.

5. On October 31, 2012, York sought access to the building

from the San Diego Superior Court. York’s request was supported by

her own Declaration that stated that some of her personal property

2/

Neither LJ Spa nor Travelers has informed the Court whether the ordered

sanctions were paid.

11cv2389 7

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 7 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was in the building. The Declaration did not state that she needed

access to the documents in the building to fulfill her discovery

obligations in this case, or to comply with the Court’s orders.

6. On November 7, 2012, Judge Pressman of the San Diego

Superior Court entered a restraining order in BioFilm v. DYG Spa, et

al., that disallowed York from entering the building.

7. On November 14, 2012, the Trustee in the Fay Avenue

bankruptcy proceeding (“Trustee”) filed a notice that he intended to

abandon all of the personal property in the building, with exception

of business records of the debtor either already in his possession

or still on the premises.

8. On November 30, 2012, Campbell requested that York be

permitted to enter the building to retrieve inventory in order to

fill holiday orders.

9. On December 4, 2012, Campbell and York removed the

inventory.

10. On December 8 or 9, 2012, by voice mail message, and on

December 10, 2012 by telephone, Campbell informed Mr. McIntyre for

the first time that the Court required LJ Spa (York) to provide

discovery in this action.

11. Mr. McIntyre immediately informed Campbell that he

(Campbell) was free to bring into the building a copy service to

copy whatever documents he wished. Campbell informed Mr. McIntyre

that York must have access to the building in order to identify the

documents. Mr. McIntyre would not allow York access into the

building (due to alleged vandalism believed to have been committed

by York and Judge Pressman’s Order of November 7, 2012). Mr.

McIntyre informed Campbell that he could have immediate access to

11cv2389 8

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 8 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the building to identify the relevant documents for copying, or in

the alternative, he could copy all the documents that remain in the

building.

12. On December 11, 2012, at an ex parte proceeding in the

San Diego Superior Court (Judge Pressman), Campbell raised the issue

of York’s access to the building. Judge Pressman ordered that York

was not permitted to enter the building, but that Campbell and a

copy service may enter the building and copy whatever documents he

wished to copy.

13. From mid-October 2012 to December 10, 2012, Campbell did

not inform Mr. McIntyre that he or York needed access to the

documents in the building to fulfill discovery obligations in this

action.

On December 18, 2012, Travelers’ counsel filed a Declaration

on behalf of Travelers. The Declaration states in pertinent part:

1. On December 11, 2012, Campbell sent him an email asking

for an extension of time to produce the documents requested by

Travelers.

2. Campbell indicated that he and York “were experiencing

difficulty in gaining access to the building so that (his client)

can respond further to the requests for documents and to the

interrogatories.”

3. No further responses to Travelers’ discovery requests were

served.

On December 21, 2012, the Court set an OSC hearing for LJ Spa

to explain why terminating sanctions should not be recommended

against it.

11cv2389 9

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 9 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On January 10, 2013, Campbell filed an Opposition to the OSC.

The Opposition stated that it is essential that York examine the

books and records of LJ Spa (in the building) in order to respond to

Travelers’ requested discovery because only she has the ability to

find the records that she needs to respond. Also, the Opposition

states that efforts to see the books and records (in the building)

have been made in good faith.

On January 11, 2013, Mr. McIntyre filed a Supplemental

Declaration. The Supplemental Declaration states in pertinent part:

1. York and Campbell would have this Court believe that

BioFilm, its counsel, and Judge Pressman somehow prevented LJ Spa

from complying with its discovery obligations in this case. The

impression they attempt to create is false.

2. On October 8, 2012, the Trustee filed a Motion For a TurnOver Order.

3. As soon as BioFilm learned that the Trustee sought a turnover order of Fay Avenue’s documents, it informed Campbell by letter

of October 26, 2012, that without the Trustee’s approval, BioFilm

would not allow anyone to remove documents from the building before

the November 29, 2012 hearing date on the Trustee’s Motion.

4. After the October 26, 2012 letter, neither Campbell, York,

nor anyone else on behalf of LJ Spa asked for access to the

documents in the building in order to make copies, as opposed to

physically removing the documents, to comply with discovery

obligations in this case, or for any other reason.

5. On November 1, 2012, York, in the San Diego Superior Court

(Judge Pressman), sought an ex parte return of her personal property

in the building. BioFilm opposed York’s application and sought a

11cv2389 10

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 10 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

restraining order to protect property in the building that may

belong to the Fay Avenue bankruptcy estate. On November 7, 2012,

Judge Pressman entered the restraining order sought by BioFilm.

6. At no time during the hearing before Judge Pressman did

York or Campbell inform Judge Pressman that LJ Spa needed to make

copies of documents in the building in order to comply with

discovery obligations in this Court.

7. On November 14, 2012, the Trustee filed a notice of

proposed abandonment of all the personal property in the building,

with the exception of Fay Avenue business and financial records that

the Trustee had in his possession or that were located in the

building. The notice advised that unless objection was made, the

property would be abandoned back to Fay Avenue on December 14, 2012.

8. As soon as BioFilm received the Trustee’s notice of

proposed abandonment on November 14, 2012, it informed Campbell that

BioFilm would open the doors of the building on December 15, 17 and

18, 2012 for anyone claiming ownership of personal property in the

building to remove it.

9. On December 11, 2012, a hearing was held before Judge

Pressman. Campbell informed Judge Pressman that he would not be able

to identify any document that needed to be copied for production in

this case.

10. Judge Pressman informed Campbell to copy all of the

documents.

11. Immediately after the December 11, 2012 hearing, Mr.

McIntyre wrote to Campbell asking for information regarding when he

or his copy service wanted access to the building. Campbell did not

respond.

11cv2389 11

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 11 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. On December 12, 2012, Mr. McIntyre wrote to Campbell

asking him to identify the moving company York and her companies,

including LJ Spa, would be using on December 15, 17 and/or 18, 2012

to remove from the building her and her companies’ personal

property. Campbell did not respond.

13. Other third parties, including two of Campbell’s clients,

made arrangements to remove their property from the building.

BioFilm’s counsel gave them access to do so.

14. At no time did Campbell, York, or anyone else on behalf

of York or LJ Spa seek access to copy, or after December 15, 2012 to

remove, any documents in the building.

15. All of LJ Spa’s documents in the building were in a

single location, a second floor office suite. The documents in other

locations in the building had been moved to that office suite. There

was a copy machine in the office suite.

On January 17, 2013, the Court held an OSC hearing regarding

why terminating sanctions should not be recommended against LJ Spa.

At the hearing, Mr. McIntyre testified consistently with his two

Declarations. Ms. King testified that no one representing LJ Spa or

York contacted her or her law firm to gain access to the documents

in the Trustee’s possession that may have been responsive to

Travelers’ discovery requests. Moreover, Ms. King testified that

there was no legal impediment that would have prohibited her from

giving Campbell or York access to the documents in the Trustee’s

possession. Had Campbell or York made a request for the documents,

the only challenge, according to Ms. King, would have been logistical and as to that, she confidently testified that suitable

arrangements could have been worked out. 

11cv2389 12

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 12 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 II

 ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) states in pertinent

part:

On motion or on its own, the court may issue just

orders, including those authorized by Rule

37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii) if a party...

(A) fails to appear at a ... pretrial

conference;

...

(C) fails to obey a ... pretrial order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) states in 

pertinent part:

... the court... may issue further just orders. They

may include the following:

...

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or

in part...

If a party fails to obey a court order, the court may

sanction the disobedient party by striking pleadings, staying

further proceedings pending compliance, or terminating the action by

default or dismissal. USA ex. rel. Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu

Constr. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600 (9th Cir. 1988)(terminating

sanctions upheld for, inter alia, failure to obey a court order to

produce documents); Toth v. TWA, 862 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1988).

(terminating sanctions upheld for failure to obey a court order to

provide discovery).

Dismissal as a sanction is authorized only in “extreme

circumstances.” Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 762 F.2d

1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985) (terminating sanctions upheld for failure

to obey a court order to provide discovery), Wiltec Guam, supra, at

603. In order to warrant imposition of such a severe sanction, the

13 11CV2389 

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 13 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conduct of the disobedient party must be “due to wilfulness, bad

faith or fault.” Wiltec Guam, supra, at 603.

The Ninth Circuit has identified five factors that a court

must consider before dismissing an action as a sanction:

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation;

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

(3) the risk of prejudice to the other party;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of 

 cases on their merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

 

Leon v. IDX Systems, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)(terminating

sanctions upheld for willful destruction of evidence); Adriana

International Corp. v. Thoren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)

(terminating sanctions upheld for failure to obey court orders to

provide discovery and to appear for a deposition); Malone v. United

States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) cert. denied

488 U.S. 819 (1988)(terminating sanctions upheld for failure to obey

court order); Area 55, Inc. v. Celeras, 2011 WL 1375307 at *2 (S.D.

Cal. 2011) (terminating sanctions for failure to obey court order);

McReynolds v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2011 WL 7477676 (S.D. Cal. 2011)

(terminating sanctions for failure to attend court-ordered hearing).

Where a court order is violated, the first two factors

support sanctions while the fourth factor argues against dismissal. 

Adriana International, supra, at 1412; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1991) (terminating sanctions upheld for failure

to obey court order); McReynolds, supra at *2. The public’s interest

in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (terminating

sanctions upheld for failure to obey court order). Here, Plaintiff

14 11CV2389 

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 14 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has violated at least three court orders.3/ Therefore, the third and

fifth factors are determinative of the result.

As to the third factor, a party suffers prejudice if the

disobedient party’s actions impair the opposing party’s ability to

go to trial or threatens to interfere with the rightful decision of

the case. Malone, supra, at 131. Failure to obey a court order is

considered sufficient prejudice. Here, Plaintiff’s failure to appear

at court-ordered hearings, failure to comply with court orders in

this case and most importantly, failure to provide discovery,

constitute an interference with the rightful decision of this case.

Consequently, Travelers has been prejudiced by LJ Spa’s failures.

Malone, supra, at 131; Area 55, supra at *2; McReynolds, supra at

*2.

LJ Spa’s claim that it could not provide its Initial

Disclosures and complete responses to Travelers’ discovery requests

because it did not have access to the documents it needed in order

to provide such responses is false, disingenuous and belied by the

facts presented to this Court. 

From the time Travelers served its discovery requests on LJ

Spa on July 12, 2012 to October 19, 2012, LJ Spa had unfettered

access to the documents it claims it needed to review to properly

respond. Neither LJ Spa nor York many any attempt to retrieve the

documents that were in their exclusive possession, review those

documents in a deliberative fashion, and respond to Travelers’

discovery requests in a timely manner. Once the Sheriff evicted York

3/ These Orders are: (1) Failure to abide by the Court’s May 21, 2012 Order

Setting Rule 26 Compliance; (2) Failure to abide by the Court’s August 21, 2012

Order to meet and confer regarding its responses to Travelers’ discovery requests;

(3) failure to abide by the Court’s December 6, 2012 Order to serve responses to

Travelers’ discovery requests.

15 11CV2389 

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 15 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and her companies from the building on October 19, 2012, the task of

responding to Travelers’ discovery requests became more difficult,

but not impossible. Notwithstanding the earlier dereliction, with

the slightest bit of initiative and ingenuity, Campbell and York

could have met their discovery obligations simply by making a few

telephone calls to gain access to the documents. Instead, they did

absolutely nothing. Even when they were confronted with the spectre

of terminating sanctions after the December 6, 2012 hearing on

Traveler’s Motion to Compel, they still did absolutely nothing.

Shortly after November 14, 2012, Campbell was informed that

the doors of the building where the documents were stored would be

open on December 15, 17 and 18, 2012 for anyone to remove personal

property. Neither Campbell, York, LJ Spa, nor anyone representing

them, examined or removed the documents on those dates.

On December 4, 2012, Campbell, York and LJ Spa were allowed

access to the building where the documents were stored to retrieve

some of LJ Spa’s inventory. Neither Campbell, York, LJ Spa, nor

anyone representing them, reviewed the documents, nor removed them

at that time.

The fifth factor requires the court to consider the

availability of less drastic sanctions. The Ninth Circuit has

identified a three part analysis that courts must use to determine

whether the adequacy of less drastic sanctions has been properly

considered:

(1) Did the court explicitly discuss the feasibility 

 of less drastic sanctions and explain why 

 alternative sanctions would be inappropriate?

(2) Did the court implement alternative sanctions?

(3) Did the court warn the disobedient party of the 

 possibility of dismissal before actually 

 ordering dismissal? 

16 11CV2389 

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 16 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Adriana International, supra, at 1412, Malone, supra, at 132; 

McReynolds, supra at *2.

Here, it is evident that no less drastic sanction other than

dismissal is appropriate in this case. LJ Spa has already failed to

comply with court orders regarding court appearances and appears to

have abandoned any interest in prosecuting this litigation by

failing, on numerous occasions, to either copy the documents in the

building or remove them, so it could comply with its discovery

obligations and court orders in this case. Moreover, the Court

warned LJ Spa that its failure to appear at court ordered hearings

and its failure to abide by the Court’s Local Rules and its

discovery obligations in this case may subject its case to dismissal. “A court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the

Court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the ‘consideration

of (less drastic) alternative (sanctions).” Lance v. Adams, 2011 WL

2312171 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2011), quoting Ferdik, supra, at 1262, and

Malone, supra, at 132-133. Therefore, every justification exists

and all criteria necessary to impose the ultimate sanction of

dismissal have been met.

LJ Spa’s disobedience to orders of this Court and its failure

to comply with its discovery obligations in this case, as detailed

above, leave the Court with no alternative but to RECOMMEND that the

District Court DISMISS LJ Spa’s case in its entirety, with prejudice.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

After a review of the record in this matter, the undersigned

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS LJ Spa’s

case in its entirety, with prejudice.

17 11CV2389 

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 17 of 18
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 19, 2013 any party

to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve

a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

March 4, 2013. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise

those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 28, 2013

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

18 11CV2389 

Case 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG Document 61 Filed 01/28/13 Page 18 of 18