Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2021-00051111-CU-CR-NC, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Civil Rights Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00051111-CU-CR-NC CHAVEZ VS BOULEVARD APARTMENTS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Terminating Sanctions, 08/11/2023

The Motion for Terminating Sanctions brought by defendants Hanken Cono Assad & Co. Inc. and Boulevard Apartments LTD dba Boulevard Apartments (collectively, Defendants or the Landlord) is GRANTED. The matter has been properly noticed, with proof of service on file. The motion is unopposed. Failure to oppose constitutes a waiver and/or admission that a motion is meritorious.

As the moving papers point out, plaintiff Kenny Chavez (Plaintiff) has repeatedly failed to appear for deposition – even after being ordered to do so by this Court. Furthermore, lesser sanctions appear to have been ineffective in encouraging Plaintiff to appear for deposition. The moving papers outline a history of failure to appear, delays, etc. with regard to the taking of Plaintiff's deposition. Perhaps most notably, there was an ex parte application by Plaintiff that seemed to operate in lieu of a formal opposition to Defendants' prior Motion to Compel. One of the issues that arose at that ex parte hearing had to do with a sort of leveraging that Plaintiff was doing in that he did not want to allow Defendants to take his deposition first – he wanted to depose Defendants' witnesses first. The problem that seems to have arisen was that had to do with the affordability of a court report to transcribe the deposition, as Plaintiff discussed at the ex parte hearing that he is on a fee waiver and cannot cover that expense himself. This Court rejected that argument as it arose at the ex parte hearing (ROA 115), then granted the prior Motion to Compel as unopposed (ROA 129). Defendants have now produced evidence indicating that Plaintiff has ignored the court that was served on him and compelled his attendance at deposition. Accordingly, while the sanction of termination is a strong one, this Court's effort to try lesser sanctions first, combined by the overall case history, indicate that no further lesser sanctions would prove effective.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006445