Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV08955, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

This is a premises liability action arising out of an accident on May 13, 2019. On May 8, 2021, Plaintiff Mary Ghermezian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Inpala, Inc. (“Inpala”), Roche Bobois West Coast, Inc., and Does 1 through 100 for premises liability and negligence. On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a doe amendment naming European California Furniture (“European”) as a defendant. On June 28, 2022, Inpala and European filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity and declaratory relief against Roes 1 to 10. On October 3, 2022, Inpala and European filed a roe amendment naming City of West Hollywood (“City”) as a cross-defendant. On November 29, 2022, City filed a cross-complaint against Moes 1 through 20 for implied indemnity, contribution and indemnity, express indemnity, declaratory relief, breach of contract, and duty to defend.

On October 2, 2023, Inpala filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to attend deposition. The motion is unopposed.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Inpala seeks an order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to attend a deposition. Inpala indicates that it has duly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on five separate occasions in 2023, but that Plaintiff unilaterally canceled each deposition appearance shortly before they were scheduled to occur. (Arnall Decl., ¶¶ 2-7, Exs. 1-5.) Plaintiff did not appear at any of those depositions and did not serve any objections either. (Arnall Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.)

The Court finds Inpala’s motion to be well-taken. Plaintiff’s failure to timely object to any of the deposition notices or appear at any of the depositions is grounds for granting a motion to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at a deposition. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The Court further construes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition to this motion as a tacit admission that it is meritorious. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10.)

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) On motion of a party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party and against the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)

Here, Inpala requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney, Raymond Ghermezian, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1200.00. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is rather brief and straightforward, and that the attached Court Reservation System receipt evidences a filing fee of $60.00 rather than $90.00 as Inpala claims. In light of these factors, the Court GRANTS Inpala’s request in the reduced amount of $600.00.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Inpala, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Mary Ghermezian to attend deposition. Plaintiff must appear for deposition within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant Inpala, Inc.’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Mary Ghermezian and her attorney, Raymond Ghermezian, in the reduced amount of $600.00. Plaintiff and her attorney must pay said monetary sanctions to Defendant Inpala, Inc. within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court