Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV36351, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36351    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Doe filed this action against Defendant Mariana Groisman for violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, violation of the eviction moratorium, disability discrimination, violation of the Business and Professions Code, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and warranty of habitability. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed January 6, 2022. The complaint alleges the following pertinent facts.

             Defendant is the owner of an apartment unit in Los Angeles, which was approved as a single-family dwelling. Without the required permits, Defendant remodeled the property into a multiple-unit apartment complex by dividing the single unit into three. Defendant lives in one unit and rented the other two to Airbnb tenants and Plaintiff. Plaintiff Doe is disabled, and such disability involves “extreme concerns for personal safety and security.” (FAC ¶ 2.) For example, the illegal unit lacked a deadbolt on the door, and Defendant refused to enforce mask mandates. Plaintiff reported these violations to a city council member, who in turn reported to the Los Angeles Department of Building Safety (LADBS). LADBS inspected the property, discovered the illegal dwellings, and ordered Defendant to pay a fine, stop collecting rent, and revert the property back to its original form.

            In retaliation for Plaintiff’s reporting, Defendant allegedly began to constructively evict Plaintiff by using Plaintiff’s “known disability triggers to her advantage by harassing them under various pretexts.” (FAC ¶ 3.) Defendant allegedly yelled at Plaintiff, indicated that she was monitoring Plaintiff with cameras, blocked Plaintiff’s ingress and egress, allowed guests to loiter outside Plaintiff’s unit, activated a shared HVAC system despite Plaintiff’s concerns over COVID spread, among a host of other actions. (FAC ¶¶ 21-26.)

            On January 18, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

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

            Defendant issued a notice of deposition on October 20, 2022. (Uss Decl. ¶ 5.) The deposition was set for November 2, 2022. (Ibid.) Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on November 2, 2022 and did not serve any objections. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 10.)

            Good cause exists for the deposition because Defendant is entitled to conduct an investigation into the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims. (See Uss Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9.) There is no dispute over good cause for the deposition, nor any dispute as to the scope of examination. However, Plaintiff was substantially justified in failing to appear on November 2, 2022, because the parties were in the process of finalizing a settlement, which would have obviated the need for discovery. (Kane Decl. ¶¶ 5-10.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel deposition is GRANTED. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.