Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCP00401, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCP00401 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 2/28/23
Case #22CHCP00401
MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION
Motion filed on 12/8/23.
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner State Farm Automobile Insurance
Company
RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent Blanca Nunez
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.
This action arises out of Respondents David Nunez Perez
and Blanca Nunez’s claim to Petitioner State Farm (Petitioner) for uninsured/underinsured
motorist benefits.
Petitioner issued a policy of automobile insurance to Respondent
Blanca Nunez (Respondent), policy number 5606-735-75. Respondent claims she sustained injuries as a
result of a November 10, 2019, motor vehicle accident alleged to have occurred
on Eastbound Paxton near Laurel Canyon Drive in Los Angeles, California. Uninsured motorist Adolfo Venegas was driving
a 2019 Dodge Challenger at a high rate of speed and rear-ended claimant’s
parked 2003 Ford 450 food truck, pushing it into the front end of a Chevy
Silverado that was jump starting the Ford 450 food truck’s battery. Respondent has asserted an underinsured
motorist claim pursuant to the terms of her automobile insurance policy with Petitioner,
and Petitioner has demanded underinsured motorist arbitration regarding
respondent’s underinsured motorist claim. (Dadaian Decl. ¶2).
On December 21, 2021, Petitioner’s counsel served Respondent
with a Notice of Taking Deposition by Remote Video Conference, setting the
deposition for February 8, 2022. On
January 20, 2022, following Petitioner’s counsel's agreement to grant Respondent
a discovery extension, Petitioner advised Respondent that the deposition would
need to be rescheduled and therefore gave the following dates of March 10, 11,
28, 29, 30, 31, 2022. (Dadaian Decl. ¶3,
Ex.A).
Twice in February 2022 and three times in March 2022, Petitioner’s
counsel’s inquired about Respondent’s availability for the March 2022
deposition dates and each time Respondent failed to respond. (Dadaian Decl. ¶¶4-5, Ex.B, C).
On March 30, 2022, Petitioner's counsel served Respondent
with a Notice of Taking Deposition, rescheduling the deposition for May 17,
2022. On May 12, 2022, Petitioner's
office emailed respondent's counsel to remind her of the deposition. Respondent’s counsel advised that due to
scheduling conflicts, the deposition would need to be continued, but offered no future deposition dates. Petitioner’s counsel reminded respondent’s
counsel that this was the second continuance, and there were no dates available
in June as requested by Respondent’s attorney. Petitioner's counsel then offered several
dates in July, further advising Respondent’s counsel that if a deposition date was
not confirmed, the deposition would be unilaterally set for July 29, 2022. It was not until July 11, 2022, that Respondent’s
counsel advised she was available for deposition on September 29, 2022. (Dadaian Decl. ¶¶6-8, Ex.D-F).
On July 20, 2022, Petitioner served Respondent with a
Notice of Continuance of Taking Remote Video Conference Deposition on September
29, 2022. Twice in September, Petitioner’s
counsel emailed Respondent’s counsel to confirm the deposition. It was not until the second reminder that Respondent’s
counsel advised that the deposition needed to be rescheduled and asked for
dates to present to Respondent. Since
the deposition had already been continued more than once, Petitioner’s counsel
advised Respondent this would be the last continuance. Petitioner’s counsel proposed dates in October
and November 2022. Respondent’s counsel
was further advised that a response was required by September 30, 2022, or Petitioner
would reschedule the deposition and if Respondent failed to appear, Petitioner
would move to compel. Despite Petitioner’s
meet and confer efforts, Respondent provided no availability. Therefore, on October 21, 2022, petitioner’s
counsel rescheduled the deposition for November 17, 2022. On November 14, 2022, Respondent’s counsel
advised that Respondent’s counsel would not appear on November 17, 2022 due to
a calendar conflict. (Dadaian Decl.
¶¶9-10, Ex.G-I and Notice of Errata).
Despite Petitioner’s numerous efforts to obtain the Respondent’s
deposition, Respondent cancelled the deposition four times. Respondent then failed to appear at her
November 17, 2022 deposition on the basis of unavailability.
As a result of the foregoing, on November 17, 2022,
pursuant to Insurance Code 11580.2(f), Petitioner filed the underlying petition
to open an unlimited civil court file to establish jurisdiction over the
uninsured/underinsured motorist arbitration.
Thereafter, Petitioner filed the instant motion seeking an order
compelling Respondent to appear for deposition on March 21, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.
via Zoom remote. Additionally,
Petitioner requests sanctions against Respondent’s attorneys of record, D. Hess Panah, Vania Nemanpour and the Law Offices of D.
Hess Panah & Associates in the amount of $530.34, payable within 10 days.
Based on the foregoing, the Court takes jurisdiction over
this matter and orders Respondent to appear for deposition as requested on
March 21, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom remote.
See CCP 2025.450(a), (b); Insurance Code 11580.2(f); Miranda
(2004) 117 CA4th 913, 920-928.
Additionally, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to sanctions
against Respondent’s counsel, D. Hess Panah, Vania Nemanpour and the Law
Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates in the amount of $530.34, payable
within 10 days, for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations. See CCP 2025.450(g)(1); CCP
2023.010(d); CCP 2023.030(a); (Dadaian Decl. ¶12).