Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV15888, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV15888 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff Jorge Luis Mata Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants H&D Gateway LLC (“H&D”), Tomomi Sushi (“Tomomi Sushi”), Roberto Cortez (“Cortez”), and Does 1-30 for negligence (Lab. Code, § 3706 et seq.) and ratification of assault (Lab. Code, § 3602, subd. (b)(1)).
On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant W.Y. International, Inc. as Doe 11.
On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Golden Lyon Investment Co. as Doe 12.
On October 4, 2022, the Court sustained H&D’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for ratification of assault with 30 days leave to amend.
On December 2, 2022, H&D filed an answer. On December 19, 2022, H&D filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Cortez, Pedro Rivera Garcia (“Rivera Garcia”), and Roes 1- 20 for equitable indemnity, apportionment of liability, and contribution.
On January 17, 2023, Tomomi Sushi filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On March 29, 2024, the Court dismissed Tomomi Sushi without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 16, 2023, the clerk entered the defaults of Cross-Defendants Cortez and Rivera Garcia on the cross-complaint.
On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff amended the first amended complaint to include Defendants W.Y. International, Inc. as Doe 11 and Golden Lyon Investment Co. as Doe 12.
On January 11, 2024, the Court sustained H&D’s demurrer to the second cause of action for ratification of assault with leave to amend. The Court explained:
“ . . . Plaintiff has not pleaded any positive misconduct by H&D having to do with Rivera’s alleged shooting of Plaintiff or Cortez’s alleged harboring of Rivera. [Citation.] [¶] Instead, Plaintiff argues that Cortez’s alleged harboring of Rivera can be imputed to H&D because Cortez was a ‘supervisor’ for H&D. According to Plaintiff, when Cortez harbored Rivera, H&D harbored Rivera as a matter of law. [Citation.] The Court however concludes that an employer does not engage in ‘positive misconduct’ that would subject it to liability under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(1), based on conduct by a ‘supervisor,’ when the complaint does not allege facts showing that the supervisor acted for the employer in the matter at issue, namely, the harboring of Rivera.”
On January 17, 2024, Defendant Golden Lyon Investment Co. dba W.Y. International, Inc. (“Golden Lyon”) filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Does 1-50 for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, and express indemnity.
On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Defendants H&D, Tomomi Sushi, Roberto Cortes Leon (also known as and erroneously sued as Roberto Cortez) (“Cortes Leon”), W.Y. International, Inc., Golden Lyon, Does 1-10, and Does 13-30 for negligence under Labor Code section 3706 et seq. and ratification of assault under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(1).
On March 14, 2024, Defendant W.Y. International, Inc. (“W.Y.”) filed an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
On May 17, 2023, the Court sustained H&D’s demurrer to the second cause of action in the second amended complaint with leave to amend.
On May 20, 2024, the Court sustained Golden Lyon’s demurrer to the second cause of action in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint with leave to amend.
On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint against Defendants H&D, Tomomi Sushi, Cortes Leon, W.Y., Golden Lyon, Does 1-10, and Does 13-30 for negligence under Labor Code section 3706 et seq. and ratification of assault under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(1).
On July 29, 2024, the Court dismissed W.Y. without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On September 10, 2024, the Court sustained the demurrers of H&D and Golden Lyon to the second cause of action in Plaintiff’s third amended complaint without leave to amend.
On September 20, 2024, H&D and Golden Lyon filed answers to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint.
On January 31, 2025, Golden Lyon filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on August 4, 2025. On February 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to Golden Lyon’s motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s contention that the motion was untimely.
On February 3, 2025, H&D filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on June 2, 2025.
On February 14 and 18, 2025, Golden Lyon filed ex parte applications for an order advancing the hearing of its motion for summary judgment or continuing the trial. Plaintiff opposed the applications. On February 18 and 19, 2025, the Court denied the applications, finding that Golden Lyon did not timely serve its summary judgment motion. The Court stated: “While Plaintiff's counsel agreed to accept electronic service of Golden Lyon’s summary judgment motion in lieu of personal service, Golden Lyon has not shown that Plaintiff agreed to waive his right to two additional court days of notice for electronic service of the motion. [Citations.]” On April 2, 2025, the Court denied Golden Lyon’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 19, 2025 order denying Golden Lyon’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on its motion for summary judgment or to continue the trial.
On April 22, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the hearing on H&D's motion for summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h). However, the Court denied Plaintiff's request to continue the summary judgment hearing to August 4, 2025. Instead, the Court continued the hearing on H&D's motion for summary judgment to July 25, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 6, 2025.
B. This motion
On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Cortes Leon’s deposition. The motion was set for hearing on June 4, 2025. No opposition has been filed.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Cortes Leon’s deposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.210, subdivision (b), provides in part:
“The plaintiff may serve a deposition notice without leave of court on any date that is 20 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant. . . ."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (b).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 provides in part:
“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. . . ."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a), (b).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff personally served the summons and complaint on Cortes Leon on June 13, 2022. (Veliz dec. ¶ 4.)
On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff noticed Cortes Leon’s deposition for February 24, 2025. Cortes Leon did not object to the deposition notice and did not attend the deposition. Afterward, Plaintiff called Cortes Leon, who asked to be called later that day. When called later, Cortes Leon hung up.
On March 2, 2025, Plaintiff noticed Cortes Leon’s deposition for March 19, 2025. Cortes Leon did not appear for the deposition.
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Cortes Leon to attend a deposition. The Court grants the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 and orders Cortes Leon to attend a deposition as specified below.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jorge Luis Mata Hernandez’s motion to compel Defendant Roberto Cortes Leon to appear for a deposition. The Court orders Defendant Roberto Cortes Leon to appear for a deposition within 12 days of the hearing on this motion at 1150 S. Olive Street, Suite 600, Los Angeles, CA 90015 at 10:00 a.m.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.