Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV29755, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 5, 2025

Case Name: Llanos v. Sedgwick Formally York Risk, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV30098

Matter: Motion to Compel

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jonathan Alvarez Llanos

Responding Party: Defendant Defendant Sedgwick formally York Risk

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is an action in which Plaintiff Jonathan Alvarez Llanos alleges, among other things, that his insurer acted in bad faith while distributing funds related to his underinsured motorist claim.  The thrust of the Complaint seems to be that, contrary to its agreement, Defendant Steadfast Insurance Company failed to evaluate Plaintiff’s request for arbitration or an interpleader action for $700,000 in policy benefits as to which there was an apportionment dispute among the claimants.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) violation of the UCL, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) injunctive relief, and (6) declaratory relief.

On January 24, 2025, the Court denied Defendant Steadfast Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication (“MSJ”).

Plaintiff now seeks to compel the PMK deposition of Defendant Sedgwick formally York Risk.

Sedgwick contends that “(1) Plaintiff cannot compel a deposition of the Sedgwick PMK when that deposition has already taken place without first explaining what further information is being compelled from Sedgwick; (2) This Motion to Compel must be denied because deposition dates have been provided relating to the time period after April 30, 2020; and (3) Counsel acted in good faith, and sanctions should not be awarded”.

In his Reply, Llanos contends that deposition dates were delayed because Defendants were hoping that the MSJ would be granted.  Llanos asserts that “Mr. Haas has now reached out to move ahead with [the] second PMK Deposition. (Dec. of Mitch Oviedo, Esq. ¶18.) Plaintiff is not satisfied that additional excuses or games will not be utilized by Mr. Haas in order to prevent the second PMK Deposition if a date is chosen among those offered. As such, Plaintiff still feels it is necessary for a Court Order with a specific date to be issued so that no further delay can take place.”

Given that a deposition has not been refused, there is seemingly nothing to compel.  The deposition should still take place in the next 30 days.  The Motion is denied.  

Moving party to give notice.