On 03/28/2018 JORA MEHRABI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GLADIS SANCHEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, MARK A. BORENSTEIN, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
DANIEL M. CROWLEY
SERENA R. MURILLO
DOES 1 TO 15
SHAKHGULYAN KEN ESQ.
SHIRVANIAN NARBEH ESQ.
PASAROW STEPHEN C. ESQ.
BORROMEO IRENE G.
PASAROW STEPHEN CHARLES ESQ.
BORROMEO IRENE GAVIOLA ESQ.
PASAROW STEPHEN C.ESQ.
BORROMEO IRENE G.
11/17/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
11/25/2020: Notice of Settlement
11/25/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT) OF 11/25/2020
11/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)
2/26/2020: Notice of Ruling
2/26/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GLADYS S...)
2/11/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GLADIS SANCHEZ
2/14/2020: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF JORA MEHRABI'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GLADIS SANCHEZ AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500.00 AGAINST DEFEND
10/7/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
9/11/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE) OF 09/11/2019
9/11/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUETRIAL, FSC
9/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
10/4/2018: Answer - the cross complaint of Grigor Stepanyan
8/29/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY; COMPARATIVE CONTRIBLITION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
6/21/2018: DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR JURY
5/17/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
3/28/2018: SUMMONS -
Hearing05/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:14 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re Notice of Settlement) of 11/25/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Jora Mehrabi (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re Notice of Settlement)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Grigor Stepanyan (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jora Mehrabi (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/SummonsRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. MOTOR VEHICLERead MoreRead Less
DocketERRORRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jora Mehrabi (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC700007 Hearing Date: February 26, 2020 Dept: 28
Motion: Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant
Proposed Ruling: Deny the motion.
Special Issues: None
Law Clerk: Ashley Scott, ext. 0487
Motion to Compel Deposition
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Jora Mehrabi (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Gladis Sanchez and Grigor Stepanyan alleging motor vehicle and general negligence based on an accident that occurred on February 17, 2017.
On August 29, 2018, Grigor Stepanyan filed a cross-complaint against Gladis Sanchez for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant Gladis Sanchez’s (“Defendant”) deposition and for monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030 and 2025.450.
Trial is set for June 9, 2020.
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant’s deposition because Defendant has failed to appear for her noticed deposition four times.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose $1,500.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and her counsel of record for abusing the discovery process.
California Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450, subdivision (a) provides:¿“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection¿under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”¿
California Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450, subdivision (b) provides:¿“A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:¿
The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.¿
The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”¿
California Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450, subdivision¿(c) provides, “(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030,¿subd. (a), “[t]he 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. . . .¿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.”¿¿Failing to respond¿or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010,¿subd. (d).)¿
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery,¿even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”¿
On¿December 27, 2019,¿Plaintiff served¿a¿notice of taking¿the¿deposition of Defendant¿by U.S. mail setting the deposition date for January 13, 2020.¿ (Shirvanian Decl., ¶¿6,¿Exh. A [fourth deposition notice].)¿ Defendant objected to the deposition, but counsel did not accept to receive service electronically, and only saw the objection on Saturday the weekend before the Monday deposition date. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12, Exh. C.) A Certificate of Non-Appearance was obtained at the deposition. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff misrepresents that Defendant failed to appear four times, because Plaintiff only noticed one of the depositions. The Court agrees. Further, Defendant represents that there was a delay in Defendant’s receipt of the deposition notice due to the holiday season, thus his objection was served by mail and e-mail on January 9, 2020. (Zadoorian Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. G.) This is a timely objection as it was served four calendar days prior to the deposition date. The objection stated that the deposition was unilaterally set and neither counsel nor Defendant were available on that date. (Ibid.) Defense counsel provided alternative dates for the deposition on January 15, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 12, Exh. I.) This effort was ignored by Plaintiff’s counsel and this motion was filed a few days later. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14, Exh. J.
The Court finds the motion must be denied.¿ Plaintiff has not sufficiently met and conferred with Defendant. There is no declaration stating that Plaintiff conferred with Defendant to inquire about the non-appearance or after receipt of the objection. Plaintiff appears to rely on meet and confer efforts prior to the missed deposition, however the Court finds this insufficient as required by CCP § 2025.450(b)(2). Further, Defendant offers evidence that her counsel proposed alternative dates for the deposition on January 15, 2020, which Plaintiff’s did not respond to. The motion was filed on January 22, 2020 without meeting and conferring.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable deposition date.¿
Plaintiff¿is¿ordered to give notice of this ruling.¿
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases