Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV19934, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19934    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 24, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Deposition

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Khaled J. Al-Sabah

Responding Party: Defendant Michael Edward Bass

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

            BACKGROUND

            On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Khaled J. Al-Sabah filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Michael Edward Bass, Ronald Richards, and Usman Shaikh, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, theft, money had and received, conversion and accounting. Al-Sabah alleges that Bass was to be Al-Sabah’s “representative” in the US. Al-Sabah alleges he wired Bass $2.5 million to hire attorney Defendant Shaikh to represent Al-Sabah in an unrelated embezzlement lawsuit. Al-Sabah alleges that Bass kept $2 million of his money.

            On November 18, 2020, Bass filed a cross-complaint against Al-Sabah, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) UCL violations; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) money had and received; (6) open book account; and (7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After two demurrers, Bass filed the opertavtive second amended cross-complaint asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) UCL Violations; (5) civil conspiracy; (6) tortious interference; (7) conversion; (8) unjust enrichment; and (9) open book account.

Bass alleges Al-Sabah engaged Bass as his “representative” in US for $5 million dollars. Bass alleges that he was also “induced” to “forgo legal claims” worth $10 million against third-party Victor Noval. Bass alleges Al-Sabah has failed to pay him $5 million.

ANALYSIS

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … 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.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Michael Edward Bass. On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of deposition for February 17, 2023. Defendant advised Plaintiff that he was not available on that date. On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of deposition for March 7, 2023. On March 4, 2023, Defendant served untimely objections. Plaintiff asserts Defendant has refused to appear for deposition or provide available dates.

In opposition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not made himself available for deposition and requests this motion only be granted on the condition Plaintiff will sit for deposition. The Court will not grant the motion on this condition. If Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition and Plaintiff refused to appear, Defendant may similarly move for an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition.

As Defendant has failed to appear for deposition, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $4,725.00. Counsel declares that nine hours will be expended on the motion, reply and preparation for the hearing. Counsel does not allocate the nine hours among these activities. The Court cannot appropriately assess fees without an allocation. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.