Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV21170, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21170    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant Karma Christine Hughes (Defendant) moves the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Vrej Sarian Ghalehmaleki (Plaintiff) for deposition.  Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

            On March 3, 2023, during the initial hearing on the motion, the Court ordered a continuance of the hearing to perfect proper notice on Plaintiff’s counsel of record.  But on the same date, Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Henrik Sardarbegian (Sardarbegian), filed a proof of service establishing service of the MC-053 (Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel) on Plaintiff on April 12, 2022 by mail.  Thus, the Court finds that Sardarbegian is not counsel for Plaintiff and notice to Sardarbegian of the pending motion is unnecessary.

            Notwithstanding, the Court ordered Defendant to provide notice of the continued hearing, but Defendant has not filed a notice of continued hearing with a corresponding proof of service.  (See March 3, 2023 Minute Order.)  In short, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not been notified of the continued hearing.  Therefore, the Court denies the motion as procedurally defective.