Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00157, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV00157 Hearing Date: April 12, 2024 Dept: NCB
4
North
Central District
|
wendy
villalobos saucedo, a minor by and through her Guardian ad
Litem MANUEL VILLALOBOS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG
SDI AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Case No.:
23BBCV00157 Hearing Date: April 12, 2024 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel the deposition of
PLaintiff and her parents |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Wendy Villalobos Saucedo, a
minor by and through her guardian ad litem Manuel Villalobos Rodriguez
(“Plaintiff”), alleges that Defendants Samsung SDI America, Inc. (“SDIA”),
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEAI”), Doe Cell Phone
Designer/Manufacturer/Distributer 1-10, Cell Phone Battery
Company/Manufacturer/Distributor/Designer Does 11-20, AT&T Store, Doe
Store/Owners/Employees 21-30, AT&T Wireless Inc., AT&T Inc., and Doe
Cell Phone Company Owners/Subsidiaries 31-40 either designed, manufactured,
assembled tested, distributed, advertised, inspected, sold, or supplied the
defective Samsung cellular phone. Plaintiff
alleges that the subject cell phone was defective and unsafe for its intended
purpose such that it was capable of overheating and causing the subject cell
phone to explode, resulting in severe and permanent burn injuries to the user. Plaintiff alleges that she used the subject
cell phone in its intended or reasonably foreseeable way, but that its
batteries overheated, such that it may catch fire and explode. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries
as a result of the defective product that lacked warnings.
The complaint, filed January 23, 2023, alleges
causes of action for: (1) strict products liability (design defect and
manufacturing defect); (2) strict products liability (failure to warn); (3)
negligence (design, sale, manufacturing), (4) negligence (failure to warn); and
(5) breach of implied warranties.
On March 30, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed
without prejudice the 5th cause of action for breach of implied
warranties only.
B.
Cross-Complaint
On January 30, 2024, AT&T filed a
cross-complaint against Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC for: (1) equitable indemnification; (2)
equitable contribution; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) express indemnity. On March 11, 2024, AT&T dismissed without
prejudice the express indemnity cause of action only against Samsung SDI
America, Inc.
C.
Motion
on Calendar
On March 5, 2024, Samsung SDI America,
Inc. (“SDIA”) filed a motion to compel the depositions of Plaintiff and her
parents. SDIA seeks $19,363.50 in
sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel.
On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed an
opposition brief.
On April 5, 2024, SDIA filed a reply
brief.
DISCUSSION
SDIA moves to compel the
depositions of Plaintiff and her parents.
SDIA argues that it sent
correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel on September 18, September 25, October
18, October 28, and November 3 in 2023, requesting Plaintiff to provide dates
for the depositions of Plaintiff and her parents. SDIA states that as a professional courtesy,
the Zoom depositions set for Plaintiff and her parents in November 2023,
December 2023, and January 2024 were rescheduled to February 14, 15, and 16,
2024. SDIA argues that Plaintiff and her
parents canceled the deposition hours before the scheduled time such that SDIA
took the non-appearances of Plaintiff and her parents for their failure to
appear to the properly noticed depositions.
SDIA argues that Plaintiff’s deposition is necessary as she was the only
one in the room at the time the fire originated during the incident; the
deposition of her mother is necessary as she responded to the fire; and the
deposition of her father is necessary as he was the one who purchased, used,
and maintained the device that allegedly caused the fire, is knowledgeable
about the aftermath of the incident and Plaintiff’s medical treatment.
In opposition, Plaintiff
argues that her parents contacted Plaintiff’s counsel late on the evening of
February 13, 2024, the date before the deposition of Maria Villalobos
(Plaintiff’s mother), stating that they were too distraught to move forward
with the depositions and the case.
Plaintiff’s counsel argues that they had no indication that Plaintiff’s
parents would cancel the deposition prior to that phone call, as Plaintiff and Mrs.
Villalobos were in the office the day before Mrs. Villalobos’s deposition. Plaintiff argues that coinciding with
Plaintiff’s late cancellation, attorney Terrence Butler had a severe flare up
of cellulitis, which required immediate medical attention. According to the opposition, due to Mrs.
Villalobos’ condition, Manuel Villalobos Rodriguez (Plaintiff’s father) has
informed Plaintiff’s counsel that he does not want to move forward with the
case. Plaintiff’s counsel states that he
is willing to stipulate to sanctions for the cancellation of the depositions,
including Notices of Non-Appearance and defense counsel’s reasonable expenses
incurred in drafting the motion, but argues that the amount of sanctions
requested is exorbitant.
In light of the updates
provided by Plaintiff and counsel in the opposition brief, it appears that this
case will be dismissed by Plaintiff.
However, such a dismissal has not yet been requested or entered. As a dismissal has not yet been entered, the
Court would be inclined to grant the motion to compel. However, the Court will continue the hearing
on this motion to provide Plaintiff and counsel time to prepare the proper
requests for dismissal. If Plaintiff
intends to move forward with this action, the Court will hear the merits of
this motion and the issue of sanctions.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Defendant Samsung SDI America,
Inc.’s motion to compel the depositions of Plaintiff and her parents is
continued to May 17, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.
Prior to the hearing, if Plaintiff intends to dismiss this action, then
the proper request to dismiss this action should be lodged with the Court. If a request for dismissal is not lodged by
the end of the business day on May 9, 2024, the Court will consider the merits
of the motion and/or hear an update from the parties about the status of the
case on May 17, 2024. If Plaintiff
intends to dismiss this action, the parties should also discuss stipulating to
the issue of sanctions for Defendant preparing and filing this motion and
prepare an appropriate Stipulation and Order regarding this issue.
Defendant shall provide notice of
this order.
DATED: April 12, 2024 ___________________________
John
J. Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court