Giancarlo Ricci v. General Motors, LLC

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 513) August 24, 2026 DEPARTMENT 513 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Giancarlo Ricci; Plaintiff, vs. General Motors, LLC; Defendants. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | August 24, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: Motion for Terminating, Issue, or Evidence Sanctions | MOVING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Giancarlo Ricci

Motion for Terminating, Issue, or Evidence Sanctions The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION Defendant General Motors, LLC ("Defendant") moves the court for an order granting terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, issue and evidentiary sanctions against plaintiff Giancarlo Ricci ("Plaintiff"), and for monetary sanctions for Defendant and against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $1,500.00.

If a party engages in a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. ¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030.) ¿ " Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: [P.P.] (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. [P.P.] (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. " ¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) ¿ " When exercising its discretion to determine which form of sanction is most appropriate for a discovery violation, a trial court should consider various factors, including 'the importance of the materials that were not produced--from the perspective of the offended party's ability to litigate the case--and what prejudice, if any, the offended party suffered....'" ¿ (Victor Valley Union High School District v.

Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158.) ¿¿¿¿

First, the court finds that Defendant has shown that Plaintiff has violated a court order to provide discovery. On May 7, 2026, the court issued an order that granted Defendant's motion to compel deposition and required Plaintiff to sit for deposition within ten days of that hearing and awarded monetary sanctions to Defendant and against Plaintiff. (May 7, 2026 Minute Order.) Plaintiff never sat for that deposition. (Lasater Decl. P. 6.) Moreover, Plaintiff's own counsel states that Plaintiff has ceased communicating with counsel. (Smith Decl. P.P. 9-12.)

Second, the court finds that Plaintiff's failure to sit for deposition is prejudicial because a deposition of a plaintiff is a basic element of discovery in a Song-Beverly Action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (c)(1).)

Finally, the court has considered that it has already imposed the less severe sanction of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, which has not produced Plaintiff's compliance with the discovery rules or the court's order. (Victor Valley Union High School District, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 1158; May 7, 2026 Minute Order.)

Based on the evidence presented, and in light of the fact that Defendant did not file opposition papers disputing their conduct or showing their belated compliance, the court finds that (1) Planitiff has engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process (i) by failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery, and (ii) by disobeying a court order to provide discovery, (2) Defendant has been prejudiced by Plaintiff's misconduct, and (3) the evidence shows that the less severe sanction of monetary sanctions has not produced compliance with the discovery rules. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)

The court therefore finds that it is appropriate, and exercises its discretion, to impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

The court declines to impose monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act because it finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of further monetary sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030, subd. (a).) Defendant has obtained terminating sanctions, and so additional monetary sanctions are unnecessary.

The court also declines to impose monetary sanctions under Civil Code section 871.26, subdivision (j), because it finds that the failure of Plaintiff to sit for deposition is due to the absence of Plaintiff himself, not any wrongdoing by counsel. Thus, Plaintiff's attorney has shown good cause for counsel's failure to comply with the statute--i.e., because the actions of the client are beyond counsel's control. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (j)(2) [sanctions to be imposed against plaintiff's attorney for non-compliance unless party failing to comply demonstrates good cause].)

ORDER The court GRANTS defendant General Motors, LLC's motion for terminating sanctions. The court orders that the First Amended Complaint filed December 12, 2023 by Giancarlo Ricci against General Motors, LLC is dismissed with prejudice. All future hearings are advanced to this date and vacated. The court orders defendant General Motors, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 25STCV15579 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 513 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Mark Benedetti, et al.;