Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV42255, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42255    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 32

 

JASON CASASOLA,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

CHLOE’S APARTMENTS, LLC, et al.,

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  20STCV42255

  Hearing Date:  February 22, 2023

 

     [TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendants’ motion to compel deposition

 

 

BACKGROUND

            On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff Jason Casasola filed this action against Defendants Chloe’s Apartments, LLC, Apartment Management Group, LLC, Adrian Malin, and Dan Zuckerman, asserting thirteen causes of action stemming from alleged uninhabitable conditions.

            Plaintiff’s deposition was set for December 2, 2022, but Plaintiff did not appear. On January 25, 2023, Defendants Chloe’s Apartments, LLC and Apartment Management Group, LLC filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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 appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document … described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            After some delay due to Plaintiff’s unavailability, Plaintiff’s counsel and defense counsel eventually agreed to take Plaintiff’s deposition on December 2, 2022, and Defendant served a deposition notice to that effect. (Carpenter Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff failed to appear on December 2, 2022, although his attorney appeared. (Id., ¶ 7.) Further attempts to reschedule the deposition have been unsuccessful. (Id., ¶ 8.)

There is no dispute as to Defendants’ right to depose Plaintiff, nor any conflict regarding the scope of examination. No justification has been provided for Plaintiff’s failure to appear. Accordingly, sanctions are warranted. Defendants reasonably request $810. (See Carpenter Decl. ¶ 9.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to compel deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to appear for deposition within 10 days. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the amount of $810, to be paid within 30 days.