Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01413, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01413    Hearing Date: March 3, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Mullen v. Mercedes-Benz, Case no. 24SMCV01413

Hearing date March 3, 2025

Defendant Second Motor Group’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Defendant Mercedes-Benz’s Motion to Compel Deposition and for Sanctions

Plaintiff Mullen sues defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Second Motor Group of Valencia LLC under the Song-Beverly Act. Second Motor Group moves for leave to cross-complain against Mercedes-Benz. The motion is unopposed.

Mercedes-Benz moves to compel plaintiff’s deposition and requests sanctions. Plaintiff opposes.

Defendant Second Motor Group’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Permission to allow a party to file a cross-complaint rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Orient Handel v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 684, 701. A defendant may file a cross-complaint against a third party if the cause of action asserted arises out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as set forth in the complaint. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §428.10. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §428.50(c) allows a cross-complaint may be filed at any time "in the interests of justice.”

Second Motor Group offers the declaration of counsel Castellanet, seeking leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity against Mercedes-Benz, the manufacturer of the vehicle. Decl. Castellanet paras 3-5, 10. The potential cross-complaint arises between the same parties to the case and from the same operative facts. Decl. Castellanet paras. 8-9. Leave to file is proper. There is no opposition. GRANTED.

Defendant Mercedes-Benz’s Motion to Compel Deposition and for Sanctions

It is within the authority of the court to compel the deposition of a party who fails to appear at deposition after timely service of a deposition notice Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450(a). Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040 the meet and confer requirement obligates parties engage in good faith discussions to resolve discovery disputes. If the plaintiff fails to provide deposition dates despite a proper meet and confer process, the noticing party has the right to file a motion to compel under §2025.450(a). Stewart v. Colonia Western Agency (2001), 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016. §2025.450 authorizes the imposition of sanctions against any party that opposes a motion to compel without substantial justification.

Mercedes-Benz served a deposition notice 10/11/24 and an amended notice 10/31/24, noticing an 11/18/24 deposition date. Decl. Karchmesky paras. 2-3; exh. B. Plaintiff objected 10/11/24, indicating unavailability, and counsel met 11/18/24 to confer on alternative deposition dates. Decl. Karchemsky para. 4; exh. C. Mercedes-Benz requested notice of plaintiff’s availability by 11/22/24 but received no dates. The motion was filed, signed and dated 12/9/24. Mercedes-Benz seeks to compel plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to §2025.450.

Plaintiff asserts 2/12/25 was offered on 12/9/24. Decl. Serrano paras. 4, 13; exh. 1. Plaintiff asserts additional meet and confer efforts occurred, rendering Mercedes-Benz’s motion in bad faith. Decl. Serrano para. 5. Plaintiff asserts Mercedes-Benz was informed 12/6/24 that possible deposition dates would be supplied 12/9/24 but Mercedes-Benz filed the motion. Decl. Serrano paras. 14-15; exhs. 6-7. Mercedes-Benz argues plaintiff’s proffered deposition date was sent after Mercedes-Benz filed the motion.

At the court hearing on 2/6/25, the court ordered plaintiff to provide 3 possible deposition dates by close of business that same day. Decl. Karchemsky para. 2; See Min. order 2/6/25. As of 2/24/25 (see reply), no dates have been provided. Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order. Mercedes-Benz seeks $3,220 in sanctions for 8 hours x $395/hour plus $60 in filing fees. Decl. Karchemsky paras. 7-8. The court awards 5 hours x $395/hour plus $60 filing fees, payable within 30 days. GRANTED.