Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV42087, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42087    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 55

MORUSS v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY                 20STCV42087

Hearing Date:  9/12/22,  Dept. 55

Add-on:   AMENDED MOTION (1) TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS; AND (2) FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,567 AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.

Notice:  Okay (order shortening time)

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO).

RP:  

Summary

On 11/3/20, plaintiffs SHERRY H. MORUSS and JAMES A. MORUSS filed a Complaint.

On 4/30/21, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that GEICO, plaintiffs’ car insurer, paid an auto body shop’s outrageous storage charge of $ 8,045.00, and $2,672.00 to lienholder VW Credit, whereas the entire total car-accident loss settlement of $11,314.00 should have been paid to VW Credit to pay off the vehicle.

The causes of action are:

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

2. BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

3. NEGLIGENCE

4. VIOLATION OF STATUTE [Cal. Civ. Code § 3068].

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling plaintiffs’ depositions, and awarding $3,567.00 in sanctions, on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiffs failed to appear for their duly noticed depositions on June 22, 2022 and June 23, 2022.

·         Plaintiffs did not object to the deposition notices.

·         Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly failed to respond regarding meeting and conferring.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

A motion lies to compel deposition attendance and document production, after service of a deposition notice, where a deponent fails to appear at, or proceed with, a deposition, without having served a valid objection.  CCP §2025.450(a). 

No meet and confer is required to compel initial deposition attendance, but instead there must be a declaration showing that moving party inquired about the nonappearance.  CCP §2025.450(b)(2).   "Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue including by rescheduling.  Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124.