Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV36251, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36251    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 14

Ghermezian v. Ruiz

Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants hired them to do legal work on their behalf for which they have refused to pay.

            On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Declaratory Relief, (3) Quantum Meruit, (4) Unjust Enrichment, (5) Money Had and Received, (6) Conversion, and (7) Intentional Interference with Contract against Defendants Dorlinda Ruiz (“Ruiz”), Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, APC (“Emrani Firm”), and DOES 1-100.

            The first three causes of action are asserted against Defendant Ruiz only. The seventh cause of action is asserted against Defendant Emrani Firm only.

            On December 5, 2023, Defendants Ruiz and Emrani Firm filed their joint Answer.

            On January 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant Karina Padua (“Padua”) in lieu of DOE 1.

            On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant Jacob Emrani in lieu of DOE 2.

            On March 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant Jacob Emrani, Esq. in lieu of DOE 3.

            No proof of service has been filed indicating that individual Defendants Padua and Jacob Emrani have been served.

            Jury trial is currently set for June 3, 2024.

(1)       Deposition of Ruiz

Plaintiffs now move this court for an order compelling Defendant Dorlinda Ruiz to sit for deposition. Plaintiffs also seek sanctions in the amount of $1,660.00.

Decision

The motion is DENIED.

Discussion

            As the court said in its ruling on a previous discovery issue, this is a matter for a phone call, not a motion. Plaintiffs noticed the deposition at issue here on December 29, 2023. (Declaration of Raymond Ghermezian Exhibit A). On January 12, 2024, Defendant Ruiz served objections based on (1) the unilateral scheduling of the deposition, (2) the setting of the deposition on a holiday, (3) vagueness in the notice and an apparent conflict, (4) timeliness, (5) attorney-client privilege, and (6) privacy. (Id. Exhibit B).

            On January 18, 2024, Plaintiffs emailed Defense counsel to demand available dates. (Id. Exhibit C). Further email exchanges resulted merely in reiterated demands for dates from Plaintiffs, accusations of bad faith from Defense, threats of motions to compel, and sarcastic wishes of good luck. (Id. Exhibits C-E).

            This court has made clear that it does not consider email as an adequate substitute for live conversation. Emails are useful to document, not replace, phone calls and meetings. And no court could consider Plaintiffs brusque, single-sentence demands for dates as a reasonable attempt to address the objections raised by Defense. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(b)(2).

Conclusion

            Because Plaintiffs failed to make a reasonable attempt to meet and confer with Defense, the motion is DENIED.

(2)       Deposition of Jacob Emrani

Plaintiffs now move this court for an order compelling Defendant Jacob Emrani to sit for deposition. Plaintiffs also seek sanctions in the amount of $2,860.00.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

Discussion

            Plaintiffs noticed the deposition at issue here on December 29, 2023. (Declaration of Raymond Ghermezian Exhibit A). On January 12, 2024, Defendant Emrani Firm served objections based on (1) the unilateral scheduling of the deposition, (2) the setting of the deposition on a holiday, (3) vagueness in the notice and an apparent conflict, (4) timeliness, (5) attorney-client privilege, and (6) privacy. (Id. Exhibit B).

            On January 18, 2024, Plaintiffs emailed Defense counsel to demand available dates. (Id. Exhibit C). Further email exchanges resulted merely in reiterated demands for dates from Plaintiffs, accusations of bad faith from Defense, threats of motions to compel, and sarcastic wishes of good luck. (Id. Exhibits C-F).

            This court has made clear that it does not consider email as an adequate substitute for live conversation. Emails are useful to document, not replace, phone calls and meetings. And no court could consider Plaintiffs brusque, single-sentence demands for dates as a reasonable attempt to address the objections raised by Defense. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(b)(2).

Conclusion

            Because Plaintiffs failed to make a reasonable attempt to meet and confer with Defense, the motion is DENIED.