This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/23/2021 at 22:51:49 (UTC).

JACHIN FRENCH VS ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC., A BUSINESS ENTITY

Case Summary

On 09/01/2020 JACHIN FRENCH filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC , A BUSINESS ENTITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3299

  • Filing Date:

    09/01/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FRENCH JACHIN

Defendant

ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS LLC. A BUSINESS ENTITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND ESQ.

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND

Defendant Attorneys

YEE STEVEN ROBERT ESQ.

YEE STEVEN R

 

Court Documents

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/2/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

9/1/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/1/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

9/1/2020: Complaint

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

9/1/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

PI General Order

9/16/2020: PI General Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATE

9/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATE

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/19/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

12/28/2020: Answer

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION; MOTION F

9/8/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION; MOTION F

Request for Judicial Notice

9/8/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION DEFENDANT ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION

10/7/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION DEFENDANT ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION AND M

10/19/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION AND M

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/29/2023
  • Hearing08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2022
  • Hearing03/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2022
  • Hearing02/15/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • Hearing10/26/2021 at 1:30 PM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend and to Produce Documents at His Deposition; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and His Counsel of Record Raymond Ghermezian, APLC, Filed by the Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketReply (DEFENDANT ALEXANDRIA APARTMENTS, LLC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH AND HIS); Filed by Alexandria Apartments, LLC Erroneously Sued As Alexandria Apartments, LLC., a business entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketOpposition (Plaintiff's Opposition Defendant Alexandria Apartments, LLC'S Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jachin French to Attend and to Produce Documents at his Deposition); Filed by Jachin French (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketMotion to Compel (PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH TO ATTEND AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT HIS DEPOSITION; MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF JACHIN FRENCH AND HIS COUNSEL RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, APLC); Filed by Alexandria Apartments, LLC Erroneously Sued As Alexandria Apartments, LLC., a business entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Alexandria Apartments, LLC Erroneously Sued As Alexandria Apartments, LLC., a business entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Alexandria Apartments, LLC Erroneously Sued As Alexandria Apartments, LLC., a business entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Jachin French (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Date); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Jachin French (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jachin French (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Jachin French (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 20STCV33299 Hearing Date: October 26, 2021 Dept: 30

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of\r\nCivil Procedure § 2025.450 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

\r\n\r\n

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice,\r\na party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a\r\nparty, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section\r\n2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails\r\nto appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection\r\nany document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in\r\nthe deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order\r\ncompelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for\r\ninspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible\r\nthing described in the deposition notice.

\r\n\r\n

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall\r\ncomply with both of the following:

\r\n\r\n

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts\r\nshowing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document,\r\nelectronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the\r\ndeposition notice.

\r\n\r\n

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet\r\nand confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to\r\nattend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information,\r\nor things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the\r\npetitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

\r\n\r\n

***

\r\n\r\n

(g)

\r\n\r\n

(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is\r\ngranted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing\r\nwith Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and\r\nagainst the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless\r\nthe court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial\r\njustification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction\r\nunjust.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request for\r\nJudicial Notice

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Alexandria Apartments, LLC\r\n(“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Order\r\nGranting Defendant TJ Golden Wok’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ana Cordon’s\r\nDeposition, filed in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Case\r\nNo. BC562327; (2) Order Granting Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion to Compel\r\nPlaintiff Cynthia Castellano's Deposition, filed in Superior Court of\r\nCalifornia, County of Los Angeles Case No. BC644289; and (3) Order Granting Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Food\r\nFor Less’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lara Raymundo's Deposition, filed in\r\nSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Case No. BC674198.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s\r\nRequest for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452,\r\nsubdivision (d). (Evid. Code, § 452,\r\nsubd. (d) [“[j]udicial notice may be taken of the following matters . . . ¶ (d)\r\n[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state”].) \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant moves for an Order\r\ncompelling Plaintiff’s attendance at deposition as well as Plaintiff’s\r\nproduction of documents during deposition. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 5, 2021, Defendant served\r\nPlaintiff with a Notice of Taking Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for\r\nProduction of Documents. (Sorkin Decl.,\r\n¶ 3, Ex. A.) The Deposition Notice\r\nstated Plaintiff’s deposition would take place on April 12, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.\r\nby videoconference. (Ibid.) On April 9, 2021, three (3) days before the\r\ndeposition, Plaintiff’s counsel’s assistant sent an email to Defendant’s\r\ncounsel stating that Plaintiff will be unable to attend the deposition due to a\r\nmedical emergency suffered by Plaintiff’s counsel’s father. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s assistant additionally\r\ninquired whether the deposition may be rescheduled. (Ibid.) Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel’s assistant and agreed to reschedule Plaintiff’s deposition to June\r\n2021. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Defendant's counsel asked Plaintiff’s counsel’s\r\nassistant for possible deposition dates in June 2021. (Ibid.) Neither Plaintiff’s counsel nor Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel’s assistant responded to Defendant’s counsel’s email. (Id., ¶ 7.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant made a second attempt to\r\nschedule Plaintiff’s deposition. On\r\nAugust 2, 2021, Defendant served Plaintiff, once again, with a Notice of Taking\r\nPlaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Production of Documents. (Sorkin Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D.) The Deposition Notice stated Plaintiff’s\r\ndeposition would take place on August 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. by\r\nvideoconference. (Ibid.) On August 20, 2021, five (5) days before the\r\ndeposition, Plaintiff’s counsel’s assistant informed Defendant’s counsel that\r\nPlaintiff would be unable to attend the deposition as Plaintiff’s counsel was\r\nout of the country. (Id., ¶ 10,\r\nEx. G.) Defendant’s counsel responded to\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel’s assistant in an attempt to reschedule Plaintiff’s\r\ndeposition. (Id., ¶ 11, Ex.\r\nH.) Defendant’s counsel stated that\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel should either produce Plaintiff for deposition on August\r\n25, 2021, or provide Defendant’s counsel with alternative dates between August\r\n26-29, 2021. (Ibid.) Neither Plaintiff’s counsel nor Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel’s assistant responded to Defendant’s counsel’s email. (Id., ¶ 11.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As Defendant’s counsel did not\r\nreceive a response from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding alternative deposition\r\ndates, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a link for Plaintiff’s videoconference\r\ndeposition on August 25, 2021. (Sorkin\r\nDecl., ¶13, Ex. I.) Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel’s assistant responded to Defendant’s counsel’s email, stating that\r\n“this deposition was never confirmed.” (Id.,\r\n¶ 14, Ex. J.) Plaintiff did not appear\r\nfor deposition on August 25, 2021. (Id.,\r\n¶ 15.) Thereafter, Defendant’s counsel\r\nprepared a certificate of Plaintiff’s non-appearance. (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 8, 2021, Defendant\r\nfiled the present Motion, seeking an Order compelling Plaintiff’s attendance at\r\ndeposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Meet and Confer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, Plaintiff contends\r\nthat Defendant failed to meet and confer prior to filing the present Motion in\r\naccordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2). The Court is unpersuaded by this argument.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds that Defendant has\r\nproperly met and conferred pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil\r\nProcedure § 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2). \r\nSection 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2) states, in pertinent part, “when\r\nthe deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents . . .\r\ndescribed in the deposition notice, [the deposing party must file] a\r\ndeclaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire\r\nabout the nonappearance.” (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) \r\n“Implicit in the requirement that [deposing party] contact the deponent\r\nto inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel [for the\r\ndeposing party] listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to\r\nresolve the issue.” (Leko v.\r\nCornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4thh 1109,\r\n1124.) Here, when Defendant’s counsel\r\nlearned of the reasons for which Plaintiff would be unavailable for deposition,\r\nDefendant’s counsel attempted to accommodate Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel\r\nand re-schedule Plaintiff’s deposition. \r\n(Sorkin Decl., ¶¶ 5, 11, Ex. C, H.) \r\nHowever, on both occasions, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide alternative\r\ndates, or otherwise re-schedule Plaintiff’s deposition. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 11.) Additionally, on August 20, 2021, after\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel’s assistant informed Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff\r\nwould not attend the deposition scheduled for August 25, 2021, Defendant’s\r\ncounsel stated in an email that Plaintiff’s counsel should provide alternative\r\ndates for deposition or Defendant would “take a notice of non-appearance and\r\nfile a motion to compel [Plaintiff] to appear for his deposition and a motion\r\nfor sanctions.” (Id., Ex.\r\nH.) Neither Plaintiff’s counsel nor\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel’s assistant responded to this email. In reviewing Defendant’s multiple efforts to\r\nreschedule Plaintiff’s deposition, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied\r\nthe requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Merits of Motion to Compel Deposition\r\nof Plaintiff

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Following a review of the evidence submitted by both\r\nparties, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an Order compelling\r\nPlaintiff’s attendance at deposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant has, on two (2) separate occasions, attempted\r\nto complete the deposition of Plaintiff. \r\nOn each occasion, Plaintiff failed to appear at the deposition, or serve\r\na written objection to the Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of\r\nDocuments. Rather, on both occasions,\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel’s assistant contacted Defendant’s counsel by email on the\r\neve of the scheduled deposition, informing Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff\r\nwould be unable to appear for deposition. \r\nSubsequent to learning of Plaintiff’s unavailability, Defendant’s\r\ncounsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel in an attempt to\r\nreschedule Plaintiff’s deposition. \r\nPlaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to Defendant’s meet and confer\r\nefforts, and failed to provide alternative dates for Plaintiff’s\r\ndeposition. As Plaintiff has failed to\r\nobject to Defendant’s two (2) Notices of Deposition or appear at either\r\ndeposition, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an Order compelling\r\nPlaintiff’s attendance at deposition. \r\n(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a) [stating that when a party is\r\nserved with a deposition notice but fails to either appear for examination or\r\nto proceed with it, or to serve a written objection to the notice, the party\r\nthat gave notice is entitled to an order compelling the party’s attendance at\r\ndeposition as well as the production of documents described in the\r\nnotice].) Further, as Plaintiff has\r\nadequately explained the necessity for the production of documents during\r\ndeposition, the Court finds good cause to require the production of documents\r\nincluded within Defendant’s Notice of Deposition during Plaintiff’s\r\ndeposition. (Sorkin Decl., ¶ 16.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel\r\nPlaintiff Jachin French to Attend and To Produce Documents at His Deposition is\r\nGRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request for Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In conjunction with the present\r\nMotion, Defendant requests monetary sanctions be issued against Plaintiff and\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,215. \r\nPlaintiff opposes Defendant's request for sanctions and, conversely,\r\nrequests monetary sanctions be issued against Defendant in the amount of\r\n$1,000.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the event a motion to compel a\r\nparty’s deposition is granted, it is mandatory for the Court to issue sanctions\r\nin favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent\r\nunless the Court finds that the deponent acted with substantial justification\r\nor other circumstances which make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, the Court exercises its\r\ndiscretion to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel based upon\r\na finding that Plaintiff’s counsel did not act with substantial justification\r\nin failing to meet and confer in good faith in order to reschedule Plaintiff’s\r\ndeposition. While the reasons for\r\nunavailability appear to be reasonable (i.e., the illness of Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel’s father, and Plaintiff’s counsel being out of the country),\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel completely ignored Defendant’s counsel’s attempt to\r\nreschedule Plaintiff’s deposition. After\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant’s counsel that the deposition could not\r\nproceed due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s unavailability, Plaintiff’s counsel did\r\nnot respond to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts in order to reschedule the\r\ndeposition. Such behavior is not\r\njustified. Accordingly, the Court\r\nimposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of\r\n$1,215. (Sorkin Decl., ¶ 17.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request\r\nfor sanctions.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Alexandria Apartments,\r\nLLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jachin French to Attend and To Produce\r\nDocuments at His Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff\r\nFrench is ORDERED to sit for a deposition and to produce the requested\r\ndocuments within 20 days of the date of this order, or at a later date as\r\ndetermined by Defendant.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel in the amount of $1,215. Plaintiff’s counsel ORDERED to mail a check in\r\nthe amount to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days of the date of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party ORDERED to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Alexandria Apartments is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer YEE STEVEN R. ESQ.