Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV13690, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13690    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            This is an action to quiet title to the subject property against a deed of trust which was deemed to have been reconveyed by a prior judgment, but which was re-recorded by Defendants. 

Plaintiff United Lender, LLC moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Lorenzo Espinoza.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff United Lender, LLC’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Lorenzo Espinoza is GRANTED. However, no order compelling production of documents will issue.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Espinoza is GRANTED in the requested amount of $1,061.65. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Request For Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (1)  Grant Deed recorded on 06/17/22 as Instrument # 20220643233 in the Official Records of the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, with reference to the real property commonly known as 422 North Soto Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033 attached as Exhibit 1 to the concurrently filed Declaration of Michael A Younge and incorporated herein by reference; (2) Judgment Quieting Title recorded on 10/05/07 as Instrument #20072294980 in the Official Records of the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, with reference to the real property commonly known as 422 North Soto Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033 attached as Exhibit 2 to the concurrently filed Declaration of Michael A Younge and incorporated herein by reference. 

Requests Nos. 1 and 2 are DENIED as not relevant to the determination of this motion. The Court need only take judicial notice of relevant materials. (Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063, overruled in part on other grounds noted in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, 1276.) The Court may deny a request for judicial notice of material unnecessary to its decision. (Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 709, 713.)

Discussion

Plaintiff United Lender, LLC moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Lorenzo Espinoza.

Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450 provides in pertinent part as follows:

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails . . . to proceed with it, . . . the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, . . .

(b) 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.

(2) 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.

. . .

(g)

(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.

. . .

(h) If that party or party-affiliated deponent then fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that party deponent or against the party with whom the deponent is affiliated. In lieu of, or in addition to, this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken pursuant to that order.

. . .

     (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450.) 

Defendant failed to appear to his noticed March 14, 2023 deposition without having served any objections to the deposition notice. (Declaration of Andrew H. Steinberg, ¶¶ 3 – 5; Exhs. 2 – 5 thereto. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Defendant to obtain a deposition date, but received no response. (Steinberg Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. 6.) In Supplemental Points and Authorities filed on April 19, 2023, Plaintiff indicates that even after Defendant retained counsel, he still has not confirmed an intention to appear for his deposition. (Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Sinclair, ¶ 2 – 6; Exhs. A – C thereto.)

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to appear for his deposition. However, Plaintiff is not entitled to an order compelling production of documents, because Plaintiff did not “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.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450(b)(2).) 

Defendant’s arguments in opposition that Plaintiff lacks standing in this action, that the quiet title judgment issued against the wrong entity, and requesting that the preliminary injunction be dissolved retroactively are not properly asserted as a basis to refuse to appear for a deposition. Defendant may assert these arguments by way of a properly-noticed motion.

Plaintiff United Lender, LLC’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Lorenzo Espinoza is GRANTED. However, no order compelling production of documents will issue.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Espinoza is GRANTED in the requested amount of $1,061.65 ($1,000 reporting agency fees and $61.65 filing fee—Steinberg Decl., ¶ 7). Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.