Tentative Ruling: Jose Alfredo Rojas Hernandez vs Darush Babai

Case Number

23CV04483

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 03/27/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein:

Defendant Darush Babai’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions is granted. Plaintiff Jose Alfredo Rojas Hernandez’s complaint is stricken and his case is dismissed. Monetary sanctions of $600.00 are awarded in favor of Darush Babai and against Jose Alfredo Rojas Hernandez, payable to counsel for Darush Babai no later than April 24, 2026.

Background:

This action commenced on October 11, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by Jose Alfredo Rojas Hernandez (Hernandez) against defendant Darush Babai (Babai) for intentional tort.

As alleged in the complaint:

On August 13, 2023, Hernandez parked his 2017 Honda Accord Sport in a parking lot near his residence in Santa Barbara. When he went outside to take out the thrash, the car was no longer parked there. Hernandez went to the police station and made a stolen vehicle report, telling the police that he believed Babai had likely taken the vehicle. Babai was initially a co-signer on the loan that enabled Hernandez to purchase the vehicle. Hernandez paid the loan off approximately two years ago. (Compl., IT-1.) The police went to Babai’s residence and towed the vehicle to an impound yard, but the vehicle accrued impound fees that Hernandez could not afford, and Hernandez believes the vehicle was sold. (Ibid.)

On October 23, 2023, Babai answered the complaint with a general denial. By way of the answer, Babai alleges:

In 2017, Hernandez was an employee and manager of Babai’s at Giovanni’s Pizza where he had been a long time and trusted employee. Hernandez was paying off American Honda Financial Corporation for the subject vehicle, which had Babai’s name on title. On October 8, 2019, Babai paid off the balance of the car loan for $15,481.00 because Hernandez’s boyfriend was driving the vehicle without a valid driver’s license and Babai did not want to take the risk of being sued. Babai asked Hernandez to give him a Note for the payment of the car. In 2021, Hernandez quit working for Giovanni’s and changed his phone number, still owing Babai money.

On May 3, 2024, Babai filed a cross-complaint against Hernandez. After being granted leave to do so, Babai filed his first amended cross-complaint (FACC) for breach of contract and common counts, alleging Hernandez is liable to him for money owed on the vehicle as well as expenses incurred as the result of Hernandez failing to pay rent on an apartment that Babai co-signed the lease on.

Due to Hernandez’s failure to respond to discovery requests, Babai filed motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, and requests for admissions (collectively the “motions to compel”). Hernandez did not file any opposition to the motions to compel and did not appear at the hearing on the motions. On August 8, 2025, the court granted the motions to compel and ordered Hernandez to serve verified responses, without objection, as well as produce all responsive documents identified in responses to the inspection demands, within 15 calendar days after service of notice of the order. Additionally, the requests for admissions were deemed admitted and Hernandez was sanctioned in the amount of $1,840.00.

Court records reflect that Hernandez was served orders granting the discovery motions on April 22, 2025.

On November 20, 2025, Babai filed the present motion for terminating and monetary sanctions due to Hernandez failing to comply with the August 8, 2025, orders, and for seemingly abandoning this action. Babai’s counsel declares that Hernandez has not provided any discovery responses, has not asked for an extension to respond, and has not indicated any interest in continuing to participate in this action. (Park Decl., ¶ 4.)

Hernandez was timely served with the motion on October 8, 2025, yet has not filed any opposition or other response to the motion.

Analysis:

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . .

            “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . .

            “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)

“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process:

“(a) 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.

“(b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.

“(c) The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.

“(d) The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

“(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

“(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

“(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

“(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

“(e) The court may impose a contempt sanction by an order treating the misuse of the discovery process as a contempt of court.

“(f)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), or any other section of this title, absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.

“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bendley 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.)

It has become apparent that terminating sanctions are warranted and that no lesser sanctions will be effective in compelling Hernandez to comply. Hernandez appears to have abandoned his case. He has failed to appear for hearings and has not filed anything with the court since October 2023.

The motion for terminating sanctions will be granted and Hernandez’s complaint will be stricken.

Babai also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $600.00 for the necessity of bringing the present motion. Babai’s counsel declares that his hourly rate in this matter is $200.00 and that he has spent approximately two hours preparing the motion and supporting documents. (Park Decl., ¶ 6.) He estimates expending an additional hour preparing for and appearing at the hearing on the motion. (Ibid.) The court finds counsel’s hourly rate reasonable and additionally finds the time expended to be reasonable and necessary. The requested monetary sanctions will be granted.