Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 19STCV15991, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.
2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.
3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.
Case Number: 19STCV15991 Hearing Date: January 24, 2023 Dept: 26
|
Meridian
pacific holdings, llc, and MERIDIAN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ameritek
ventures; lion den, llc; ppb engineering & systems design, inc.; michael
stokes; Constantina frial; kenneth mayeaux; jamie mayeaux; clinton stokes, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 19STCV15991 Hearing Date: January 24, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: defendants cLINTON STOKES, JAMIE MAYEAUX AND KENNETH MAYEAUX’s
motion to compel plaintiff meridian pacific holdings, llc’s further answers
to deposition questions |
Background
On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff Meridian Pacific
Holdings, LLC (“MPH”) filed the instant action arising out of approximately
$1.6 million in advances made pursuant to three business financing agreements. On April 1, 2021, Plaintiffs MPH and Meridian
Financial Group, LLC (“MPG”) (jointly “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Third
Amended Complaint (“TAC”) against defendants Ameritek Ventures, Inc.
(“Ameritek”); Lion Den, LLC (“Lion”); PPB Engineering & Systems Design,
Inc. (“PPB”); Michael Stokes (“MStokes”); Constantina Frial (“Frial”); Kenneth
Mayeaux (“KM”); Jamie Mayeaux (“JM”); and Clinton Stokes (“CStokes”).
The TAC asserts eleven causes of action for
(1) Breach of Contract against PPB, CStokes, MStokes, JM, and KM; (2) Breach of
Contract against Ameritek, CStokes, MStokes, KM, and JM; (3) Breach of Contract
against Lion, Frial, and MStokes; (4) Money Had and Received against all defendants;
(5) Unjust Enrichment against all defendants; (6) Promissory Fraud against PPB,
CStokes, MStokes, JM, and KM; (7) Promissory Fraud against Ameritek, CStokes,
MStokes, KM, and JM; (8) Promissory Fraud against Lion, Frial, and MStokes, (9)
Fraud against PPB, CStokes, MStokes, JM, and KM; (10) Fraud against Ameritek,
CStokes, MStokes, KM, and JM; and (11) Fraud against Lion, Frial, and MStokes.
On April 9, 2021, Cross-Complainants
CStokes, KM, and JM (“Cross-Complainants”) filed a cross-complaint against
Ameritek and Shaun Passley (“Passley”).
The cross-complaint asserts six causes of action for (1) Indemnity, (2)
Breach of Contract, (3) Breach of Contract, (4) Breach of Contract, (5) Breach
of Contract, and Tortious Interference with Contract.
On May 23, 2022, Cross-Complainants
filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff MPH’s person most knowledgeable
Ari Zieger’s further answers to deposition questions. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an
opposition. On January 17, 2023, Cross-Complainants
filed a reply.
Legal
Standard
Code
Civil Procedure section 2025.480 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) If a deponent
fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored
information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified
in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery
may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.
(b) This motion
shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the
deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.
…
(j) The court shall
impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production,
unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust.
Discussion
The
Instant Motion is Untimely
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
2025.480(b), a motion to compel further deposition answers “shall be made no
later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the
deposition[.]” (Id.) “The 60-day deadline [i]s mandatory.” (Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25
Cal.App.5th 316, 321.) This time
limitation is also “‘jurisdiction[al]’ in the sense that it renders the court
without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997)
58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; accord Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007)
156 Cal.App.4th 123, 136.)
Here, Plaintiff MPH’s person most
knowledgeable – Ari Zeigler – was deposed on March 3, 2022. Eighty one days later, Cross-Complainants
filed the instant motion. Though
Cross-Complainants fail to provide the date that the deposition transcript was
complete, Cross-Defendants concede that the deadline for the motion to compel
is May 20, 2022. (Meehan Decl. ¶ 3, Exh.
1 [“The deadline for my Motion to Compel is May 20, 2022. Please confirm that
you will extend the deadline on a motion to compel at least thirty (30) days by
close of business on Tuesday, May 17, 2022. If I do not receive the agreement
to extend the deadline, I will have no choice but to file a. motion to compel
and seek. monetary sanctions against you and your clients.”].) However, Cross-Complainants did not file the
instant motion until May 23, 2022. As
conceded in the moving papers is untimely.
Cross-Complainants have not presented any evidence
that Plaintiffs agreed to extend the deadline.
In any event, any contention that the parties agreed to extend the deadline
is unavailing as a matter of law. Unlike
other discovery procedures, the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit an
extension of the 60 day deadline.
(Compare CCP § 2025.480(b), [“This motion shall be made no later than
60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”],
[Italics Added]; contra CCP § 2030.300, [“Unless notice of this motion
is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to
which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing,
the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the
interrogatories.”], [Italics Added].)
Therefore, the instant motion is
untimely, and the Court is without authority to rule on the motion except to
deny. Accordingly, the instant motion is
DENIED as untimely.
CONCLUSIONS AND
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Defendants/Cross-Complainants
Kenneth Mayeaux, Jamie Mayeaux, and Clinton Stokes’s motion to compel Plaintiff
Meridian Pacific Holdings, LLC’s further deposition answers is DENIED.
Moving Parties are to give notice
and file proof of service of such.
DATED:
January 24, 2023 ___________________________
Elaine
Lu
Judge
of the Superior Court