Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV30752, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30752    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff Sophia Paloma Salahuddin filed this action against Defendants Dalia’s Pizza Market, Incorporated and Hala Hijazi, alleging wage violations. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on May 28, 2024.

            On April 14, 2025, Defendant Dalia’s Pizza Market 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 . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination . . . or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing 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(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant initially served a deposition notice on July 15, 2024, setting Plaintiff’s deposition for August 1, 2024. (Tundis Decl., Ex. 1.) However, Plaintiff did not appear for her deposition on August 1, 2024. (Id., Ex. 2.) In November 2024 and February 2025, Defendant attempted to ascertain alternative dates, to no avail. (Id., Ex. 3.) On March 4, 2025, Defendant served another deposition notice, setting Plaintiff’s deposition for March 21, 2025. Plaintiff objected to the notice on the grounds that her counsel was expected to be in trial on that date. Plaintiff did not appear for her deposition on March 21, 2025. (Id., Ex. 5.)   

            Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to dispute these facts. The facts show that Plaintiff has failed to appear for her duly noticed deposition. Thus, an order compelling compliance is warranted.

Sanctions are also warranted because Plaintiff presents no substantial justification for her failure to appear despite two notices. Defense counsel claims to have spent 6.75 hours on the motion at a rate of $400 per hour. (Tundis Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) The Court finds the hourly rate to be reasonable but reduces the time spent to 3 hours given the simplicity of the motion. Defendant additionally incurred $1,416.50 in court reporter fees. (Id., ¶ 7.) Therefore, the Court awards a total of $2,616.50.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall appear for her deposition on _______________, 2025. The Court sanctions Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,616.50, to be paid within 30 days of this order.