Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: BC722892, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC722892    Hearing Date: September 17, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

LATANNYA BANKS, an individual,

LELAH BANKS, a minor by

LaTannya Banks, as her guardian ad

litem, and EDNA ESSIEN,

 

                             Plaintiff,

 

                              vs.

 

THE LOFTS AT THE SECURITY

BUILDING; THE SIMPSON PROPERTY

GROUP; PPC PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT, INC.; IRAJ PESSIAN;

PETER AFROOZ; and DOES 1 through

20, inclusive,,

 

                              Defendants.
Case No.:  BC722892

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed: 09/24/2018 

[1st Amended Complaint Filed: 07/08/2021]

Trial Date: 02/18/2025 

 

Hearing Date:              September 17, 2024

Moving Party:             Defendants Simpson Property Group, L.P. and Security Building Loft Partners, L.P.

Responding Party:      N/A - Unopposed

Motion:                      Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff Latannya Banks and Production of Documents

Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. The motion is GRANTED.

 

Background

            On September 24, 2018, Latannya Banks (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint on behalf of herself and her minor daughter after suffering bedbug bites during their stay at an apartment complex. The complex is owned by The Lofts at the Security Building and The Simpson Property Group (collectively, Defendants). The Complaint was followed by a First Amended Complaint (FAC) which was filed on July 8, 2021 and alleged seven causes of action: (1) battery, (2) negligence, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (5) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (6) violation of Civ. Code §1942.4, and (7) public nuisance.

            The motion now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion To Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff and Production of Documents (the Motion). The Motion is unopposed.     

Discussion

Legal Standard

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. See also L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.26, Appendix 3.A(e) (reasonable consideration should be given to accommodating schedules in setting depositions).) 

 

Analysis

            Defendants provide the Declaration of Layne M. Bukovskis (Bukovskis Decl.) which details the timeline of events that led to the instant Motion. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff appeared for the first session of her deposition, but did not produce the documents responsive to the deposition notice that was served. (Bukovskis Decl., ¶¶3-5.) Because no responsive documents were provided Defense counsel suspended the deposition and the parties entered into an agreement that a second deposition would be scheduled, and Plaintiff would produce the requested documents. (Bukovskis Decl., ¶7.) After failed attempts to set a second deposition, Defense counsel filed a Motion to Compel the second session deposition which was granted on April 17, 2023. (Bukovskis Decl., ¶8.)

When the second session deposition took place on April 4, 2024, Plaintiff insisted the deposition end prematurely since she was feeling ill. (Bukovskis Decl., ¶9.) The session ended and Defense counsel reserved the right to take a third session to complete the deposition. After several attempts to confer with Plaintiff’s counsel and set a date for the third session an Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Production of Documents and Things was served on June 20, 2024 for a deposition on July 2, 2024. (Bukovskis Decl., ¶17.)  No objection was served, and Plaintiff’s counsel only responded on the afternoon of July 1, 2024 indicating Plaintiff was unavailable. (Bukovskis Decl., ¶19.)

Without Plaintiff having served a valid objection, and only notifying Defense counsel the afternoon prior to the deposition, Defense counsel fulfills the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450. Therefore, the Motion is granted, and sanctions are warranted.

Sanctions

Defense counsel provides the following calculations:

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $225.00 per hour

·         Counsel spent 3.5 hours drafting the Motion

·         Counsel incurred a $60.00 filing fee

·         Counsel anticipated 4 hours reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply

·         Counsel requests the Court impose a total of $1,747.50

Considering no opposition on nor reply was filed, the Court will impose sanctions against Plaintiff, and award them to Defendants in the amount of $847.50.

 

Conclusion

            Defendants’ Motion To Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff and Production of Documents is GRANTED. The Court will impose sanctions against Plaintiff, and award them to Defendants in the amount of $847.50. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a deposition with all responsive documents within 30 days of this order. Monetary sanctions are due to Defendants within 30 days of this order.

 

 

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated: September 17, 2024

 

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court