Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV15848, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

        All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    


            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the  matter off calendar.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 

            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.   


Case Number: 23STCV15848    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

GRIGOR POGOSYAN,

 

         vs.

 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.

 Case No.:  23STCV15848

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  November 13, 2024

 

Plaintiff Grigor Pogosyan’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s person(s) most knowledgeable is granted.  Defendant is to produce its PMK for deposition within 20 days of this ruling.

 

          Plaintiff Grigor Pogosyan (“Pogosyan”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s (“GM”) (“Defendant”) Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2025.450(a).)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s PMK, the Court rules as follows:

On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed his operative Complaint against Defendant alleging three causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; and (3) violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”).  (See Complaint.)

On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s PMK, with the deposition to take place on June 20, 2024.  (Decl. of Korn ¶5, Exh. A.)  On June 12, 2024, Defendant served a list of objections to the Notice of Deposition.  (Decl. of Korn ¶5, Exh. B.)  Therefore, the deposition did not proceed.

On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff scheduled the deposition of Defendant’s PMK for August 8, 2024.  (Decl. of Korn ¶7, Exh. D.)  On July 30, 2024, Defendant served a list of objections to the Notice of Deposition.  (Decl. of Korn ¶7, Exh. E.)

On August 8, 2024, despite timely noticing the deposition of Defendant’s PMK, and Plaintiff was forced to take a Certificate of Non-Appearance.  (Decl. of Korn ¶8, Exh. F.)

On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.  As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 and orders Defendant’s PMK to appear for deposition within 20 days.  Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to order Defendant to produce a PMK witness.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

 

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK is granted.  Defendant is to produce its PMK for deposition within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving Party to give notice.

 

 

Dated:  November _____, 2024

                                                                            


Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court