This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:46:58 (UTC).

KAYLA LYONS VS TOMMER BENHAM ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/01/2017 KAYLA LYONS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against TOMMER BENHAM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2052

  • Filing Date:

    11/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LYONS KAYLA

Defendants and Respondents

HAIM ASHER

BENHAM TOMMER

BELL JEREMY SCOTT

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PATRICK J. STARK

STARK PATRICK J.

Defendant Attorneys

O'SHEA TIMONTHY J. LAW OFFICE OF

MARTHA RICHARD HAYS

GIBBS MATTHEW S

JONES ROBYN N. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

CIVIL DEPOSIT

1/2/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/2/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MARISELA MELLADO

4/4/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MARISELA MELLADO

APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

4/4/2018: APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

NOTICE OF REJECTION

5/4/2018: NOTICE OF REJECTION

Unknown

8/20/2018: Unknown

NOT1CI OF POSTING JURY FEES

8/20/2018: NOT1CI OF POSTING JURY FEES

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8/20/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Substitution of Attorney

10/29/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Request for Dismissal

2/6/2019: Request for Dismissal

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

3/7/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/4/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Stipulation and Order

4/15/2019: Stipulation and Order

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

6/3/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

12/11/2017: DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

11/1/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Jeremy Scott Bell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation and Proposed Order to Continue All Discovery and Motion Dates and Deadlines); Filed by Tommer Benham (Defendant); Asher Haim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Richard Hays Martha (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and All Related Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendants/Cross-Complainants Tommer Ben Haim and Asher Ben H...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and All Related Dates); Filed by Tommer Benham (Defendant); Asher Haim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Tommer Benham (Defendant); Asher Haim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Declaration (of Jonathan Berger In Support Of Ex Parte to Continue Trial and All Related Dates); Filed by Tommer Benham (Defendant); Asher Haim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 12/11/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kayla Lyons (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by Kayla Lyons (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Kayla Lyons (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Kayla Lyons (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682052    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant/Cross-Defendant Jeremy Scott Bell

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 11, 2017, Plaintiff Kayla Lyons filed a complaint against Defendants Tommer Benham, Asher Haim, and Jeremy Scott Bell. The complaint alleges negligence arising out of a vehicle-motorcycle accident that occurred on May 20, 2017. 

On January 2, 2018, Defendants Tommer Benham and Asher Haim (“Cross-Complainants”) filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Jeremy Scott Bell (“Cross-Defendant”).

On January 31, 2020, Cross-Complainants filed a motion to compel Cross-Defendant to deposition.

On February 18, 2020, Cross-Defendant filed an opposition.

Trial is set for April 10, 2020.

///

PARTYS REQUESTS

Cross-Complainants ask the Court to compel Cross-Defendant to deposition for failure to appear at noticed depositions.

Cross-Complainants also ask the Court to impose $3,100 in monetary sanctions against Cross-Defendant for his abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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).)

DISCUSSION

On March 27, 2019, Cross-Complainants served a second amended notice of taking the deposition of Cross-Defendant. (Chang Decl., ¶ 10; Exh. G.) It was noticed for May 1, 2019. (Id.) Cross-Defendant did not serve an objection to the deposition notice. (Chang Decl., ¶ 11.) Cross-Defendant failed to appear on the scheduled deposition date and a Certificate of Non-Appearance was taken. (Chang Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. H.) Counsels for the parties corresponded regarding the non-appearance. It was disclosed that Cross-Defendant was incarcerated during said deposition date

On August 22, 2019, counsel for Cross-Complainants was informed that Cross-Defendant was released from jail on July 23, 2019. (Chang Decl., ¶ 15.) On August 27, 2019, Cross-Complainants served a third amended notice of taking the deposition of Cross-Defendant. (Chang Decl., ¶ 16.) It was noticed for September 17, 2019. (Id.) The deposition was subsequently vacated. (Id.)

On December 10, 2019, Cross-Complainants served a fourth amended notice of taking the deposition of Cross-Defendant. (Chang Decl., ¶ 19; Exh. L.) At the agreement of all parties, the deposition was noticed for December 13, 2019. (Id.) Cross-Defendant again failed to appear, and a Certificate of Non-Appearance was taken. (Chang Decl., ¶ 20; Exh. M.) To date, Cross-Defendant’s deposition has not been taken. (Chang Decl., ¶ 23.) 

In opposition, Cross-Defendant’s counsel argues: (1) until recently, they were unable to contact Cross-Defendant; (2) Cross-Defendant is vagrant and has difficulties with competency; (3) they have fully cooperated with discovery to the extent possible given the circumstances; (4) compelling deposition would constitute undue burden and expenses; and (5) the instant motion was made without substantial justification, and Cross-Defendant’s counsel is entitled to $1,500 in attorney’s fees.

The Court finds the motion is properly granted. Cross-Complainants properly served deposition notices to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant twice failed to appear.

Both parties requests for sanctions are denied, however, as the Court is not convinced the Cross-Defendant's failures have been willful.    

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Cross-Defendant is ordered to appear at a deposition within 20 days of this ruling on a date mutually agreeable with Cross-Complainants.

Cross-Complainants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.