Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV29431, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV29431 Hearing Date: October 7, 2024 Dept: 14
#3
Case Background
This is an action for violations of the Labor Code,
unfair competition, and failure to permit inspection. Plaintiff alleges that
while he was employed at Defendants’ business, Defendants failed to pay him
overtime wages and failed to provide meal periods and breaks.
On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff Mario Anibal Martinez
Monge filed his Complaint against Defendants 75S Corp dba FMC Metals and Kevin
Armstrong.
On June 25, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to
compel nonparty Major League Trucking, Inc. to comply with their deposition
subpoena.
Instant Pleading
Defendants move to compel nonparty Major League
Trucking, Inc. to comply with their deposition subpoena.
Decision
Defendants’ motion to compel Major League Trucking,
Inc. to comply with their deposition subpoena is DENIED without prejudice.
Discussion
Defendants move to compel a nonparty, Major League
Trucking, Inc. to comply with their deposition subpoena.
A “written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an
answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or
tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the
nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by
mail¿or electronic service¿at an address¿or electronic service
address¿specified on the deposition record.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule
3.1346.)
Here, Defendants’ proof of service filed on June 25,
2024, states Major League Trucking, Inc. was served via mail. Although the
parties agreed to electronic service on February 14, 2024, there is no
indication that Major League Trucking, Inc. consented to service by mail.
Therefore, the motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena filed by
Defendants is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with Cal. Rules of
Court, Rule 3.1346.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion to compel Major League Trucking,
Inc. to comply with their deposition subpoena is DENIED without prejudice.