Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 23PDUD04099, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff V&S Complete Auto Repairs, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the First Amended Complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendants Ara Ohanjanyan and Arman Arutyunyan (“Defendants”) on December 13, 2023. The property at issue is located at 7139 Foothill Blvd., Tujunga, CA 91042. Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into a written lease agreement on July 27, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that it served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, and the period for Defendants to comply expired on November 17, 2023. Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, costs incurred in the proceeding, past due rent of $11,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate of $366.67 per day beginning December 1, 2023.

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the depositions of Defendants.

Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Defendants Ara Ohanjanyan and Arman Arutyunyan.

Plaintiff argues that on March 15, 2024, Defendants’ depositions were noticed for May 10, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged in an email that the deposition dates were unilaterally set, but that they would act as placeholders until the parties could finalize deposition dates. Plaintiff argues that while defense counsel promised to provide dates, no deposition dates were provided. Plaintiff thereafter noticed Defendants’ depositions on May 14, 2024, setting depositions for May 20, 2024. Plaintiff argues that it did not receive any response or objection from Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel attended the depositions on May 20, 2024 and obtained certificates on non-appearance against Defendants.

In opposition, Defendants argue that this motion is moot as defense counsel has provided available dates for Defendants’ depositions and never disputed that Defendants should be produced for their depositions. Defendants also argue that the deposition notices setting the depositions for May 20, 2024 were not timely served by email on May 14, 2024, as the email notice did not provide 5 days of notice, plus 2 court days for electronic service. (See CCP § 2025.270(b), 1010.6.)[1]

Based on the parties’ papers, neither party disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to take the depositions of Defendants. Based on defense counsel’s May 24, 2024 email to Plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel offered to make Arman Arutyunyan available on June 18, 20, or 21 in the afternoon and Ara Ohanjanyan available on June 24 or 25 in the afternoon. (Opp., Ex. 2.) Plaintiff’s reply brief was filed on June 20, 2024 and does not discuss whether these alternate dates were accepted. Based on the conclusion of the reply brief wherein Plaintiff requests that the depositions take place within 10 days of the order, the Court infers that the parties have not agreed on a deposition date and that the depositions have not gone forward.

As the parties do not dispute that Defendants should be deposed, the Court will grant the motion to compel Defendants’ depositions. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable deposition date. Plaintiff shall initiate meet and confer efforts and defense counsel shall be ordered to respond with proposed dates of availability of their clients within 5 business days. If the parties are unable to find a mutually agreeable date after good faith meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff may notice Defendants’ depositions within 10 days of Plaintiff’s last meet and confer letter.

Plaintiff seeks $4,713.07 in sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record (= $1,947.44 in attorney’s fees and mileage cost for the depositions + $2,765.63 in fees and costs for the motion). Plaintiff’s counsel states that he is not in receipt of the court reporter’s invoice. (Rifat Decl., ¶9.) In the Court’s view, if there was a dispute about the deposition, Defendants should have at least notified the Plaintiff’s counsel of the dispute so that a reporter did not need to appear. The Court thus grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the reasonable amount of $950, representing the costs of the deposition appearances. In opposition, Defendants seek $2,750 in sanctions against Plaintiff. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff V&S Complete Auto Repairs, Inc.’s motion to compel the depositions of Defendants is granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable deposition date. Plaintiff shall initiate meet and confer efforts and defense counsel shall be ordered to respond with proposed dates of availability of their clients within 5 business days. If the parties are unable to find a mutually agreeable date after good faith meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff may notice Defendants’ depositions within 10 days of the Plaintiff’s last meet and confer letter.

Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $950 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

[1] Defendants also argue that the proof of service of the deposition notices indicate that the deposition notices were sent to the wrong email, but Defendants have not explained which email was incorrect. Based on an email from defense counsel, it appears that the email address defense counsel preferred to be emailed at was frontdesk@liddleandliddle.com. (Opp., Ex. 2.) The Court notes that in Plaintiff’s Exhibit K, the proof of service states that the deposition notices were served by electronic service, but no email address is provided showing where the documents were served—whether to defense counsel’s direct email address or the frontdesk@liddleandliddle.com email address.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B