Global Med Group, LLC v. New High Ltd. ( 2024 )

1 JS-6 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLOBAL MED GROUP, LLC, a Texas Case No. CV 22-6031 CAS (PVCx) limited liability company, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 CONCLUSIONS, AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEW HIGH LTD., a Hong Kong 15 corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 19 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion for 21 Terminating Sanctions, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation 22 of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s Objections. After having made a de 23 novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 24 Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions 25 of the Magistrate Judge. 26 The Court finds that the five factors set forth in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. 27 v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007), support granting 28 terminating sanctions in this action. Although plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s 1 || recommendation based on plaintiff's purported inability to pay the sanctions, defendant 2 || has presented evidence that plaintiff, and its various alter egos, have improperly 3 || transferred funds totaling $533,700 between plaintiff's accounts, rendering it unlikely that 4 || plaintiff could not pay the remaining sanctions of $4,432.50 and $9,973.45. Further, 5 || based on the evidence in the record regarding plaintiffs financial circumstances and 6 || conduct throughout the action, it does not appear likely that plaintiff would, at some future 7 time, pay the monetary sanctions ordered by the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge imposed lesser sanctions, ordering plaintiff on three separate occasions to pay monetary 9 sanctions to defendant. However, these lesser sanctions proved unsuccessful. Significantly, the Magistrate Judge twice admonished plaintiff that a failure to comply 10 with his orders could result in terminating sanctions. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff's failure to follow the Magistrate Judge’s orders repeatedly and to participate 12 meaningfully in its own case warrants the issuance of terminating sanctions. 13 IT IS ORDERED that (1) Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is 14 | GRANTED; and (2) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 15 || However, in light of the fact the Court has imposed terminating sanctions, it does not 16 || appear that an award of attorneys’ fees is necessary in this case. Defendant is instead 17 || awarded its costs of suit. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 | DATED: April 19, 2024 Aaithia I le 21 Any CHRISTINA A.SNYDER.——SOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28