Filed 2/10/21 Caoduc v. Grizzle CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| MINH CAODUC,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
MARY GRIZZLE et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
| H045338 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 2013-1-CV243555)
|
Plaintiff Minh Caoduc filed an action against defendants Mary Grizzle and Sean Grizzle in March 2013. Because the complaint is not in the appellate record, the nature of the action is unclear, though plaintiff’s brief states that the action arose out of a car accident.
In July 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel responses to defendants’ supplemental interrogatory seeking updated information. Plaintiff was ordered to respond within 15 days. In January 2017, defendants sought dismissal of plaintiff’s action as a terminating sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s July 2016 order. The court denied the request without prejudice but ordered plaintiff to comply by February 17.
In March 2017, defendants again requested dismissal as a terminating sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply. At the June 20, 2017 hearing on defendants’ request, the court continued the matter to September 12, 2017, which was also the date set for the trial setting conference, to give plaintiff another opportunity to comply. The court explicitly told plaintiff at the June hearing that it would reconsider defendants’ request for dismissal at the September hearing if plaintiff’s response was not provided by the end of August 2017.
Plaintiff did not comply, did not file opposition to defendants’ request for dismissal, and did not appear at the September 12, 2017 hearing. The court granted defendants’ request under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), 2023.010, subdivision (g), and 2023.030, subdivision (d) due to plaintiff’s “repeated failures to provide discovery responses as ordered by the Court.” On October 10, the court issued an order dismissing the case “with prejudice.” Plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal from the court’s dismissal order.
Plaintiff’s appellate brief does not address the basis for the court’s imposition of the terminating sanction of dismissal for his repeated failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders. Instead, his brief is devoted to an assertion that he was not present at the September 12, 2017 hearing due to a “severe medical condition” that arose that day after he arrived at the courthouse. He does not contend that he complied with the court’s repeated orders that he fulfill his discovery obligation nor does he assert that he had any excuse for his repeated noncompliance. Since plaintiff has failed to suggest any basis upon which we could find that the trial court erred in dismissing the action, we affirm the order of dismissal.
_______________________________
ELIA, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________
GREENWOOD, P.J.
_____________________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
Caoduc v. Grizzle et al.
H045338
