Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV05498, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05498    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to compel deposition is GRANTED, with both non-appearing Plaintiffs to produce a list of 3 available deposition dates within 10 days of entry of this order. Non-appearing Plaintiffs are sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $2,966.50 in sanctions for costs and fees incurred by their non-appearances payable within 20 days.

            On 3/5/2024, Plaintiffs Naidelin Alvarado, Marivel Benitez, and Luis Enrique Alvarado (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Lupe Andrade Powell, Lupe Andrade Powell, and Andrade 1, Separate Prop Trust (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (3) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) negligence; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (6) private nuisance; (7) violation of anti-harassment ordinance; and (8) unfair competition. 

            On 11/6/2024, Defendants moved to compel the depositions of Marivel Benitez and Luis Enrique Alvarado.

Discussion

            It is undisputed that Defendants are entitled to depose Plaintiffs Marivel Benitez and Luis Enrique Alvarado (collectively, non-appearing Plaintiffs). Rather, the dispute is over the facts leading up to 10/3/2024, when non-appearing Plaintiffs failed to appear for deposition.

            Under Defendants’ version of events, Plaintiff Naidelin Alvardo, the third Plaintiff in this action, appeared for and completed her deposition. At the time, non-appearing Plaintiffs were observed arriving at defense counsel’s office and were observed conferring with their counsel, Roy Diaz. However, at 2 pm that day, Plaintiffs’ counsel Roy Diaz advised defense counsel that he would not be producing his clients for deposition. According to Defendants, he gave no explanation or rationale for failing to produce his clients who were in the office.

            In opposition, non-appearing Plaintiffs contend that the parties discussed in great detail the good-cause requiring a temporary stay on proceeding with the depositions of Marivel Alvarado and Luis Alvarado. (Diaz Decl, ¶¶ 3-4, Opp., 2: 11-12.)

            However, the Court finds it unnecessary to engage in a battle of the facts. It is clear that non-appearing Plaintiffs did not appear for deposition, and that costs and fees were incurred by the non-appearance.[1] Non-appearing Plaintiffs have not persuasively shown that they could not have sought a stay in the deposition at an earlier time, and thus good cause for the non-appearance as it occurred has not been established.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel deposition is granted, with both non-appearing Plaintiffs to produce a list of 3 available deposition dates within 10 days of entry of this order. Both non-appearing Plaintiffs are sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,950 for attorneys fees, $60 for the cost of filing the subject motion, $556.50 in court reporter fees and $400.00 in interpreter fees for a total

of $2,966.50.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.