Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV12226, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12226    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    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. 

NOTE:  2 TENTATIVE RULINGS BELOW

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 1

MOTION

            Plaintiff Debra Faye Bunting sued defendant Satina Cobie Johnson based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s appearance for deposition.  Defendant also requests monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) 

Here, on February 14, 2022, Defendant served the subject deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for March 1, 2022. Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on that date.  As of the date of filing of the motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition. 

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) 

In opposition, counsel for Plaintiff, Samuel E. Gabriel (“Gabriel”), argues that sanctions should not be imposed against his office because Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition was of her own doing and failure to communicate and cooperate with his office.  (See Declaration of Samuel E. Gabriel, ¶¶ 8-35.)  The Court therefore finds the imposition of monetary sanctions against Gabriel’s office to be unjust.  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $432, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $186 per hour, plus filing fee of $60. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s appearance for deposition per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, unless Defendant stipulates otherwise.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $432 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

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 - NO. 2

MOTION

            Attorney Samuel E. Gabriel of Gabriel & Associates (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Debra Faye Bunting.

ANALYSIS

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The basis for the motion is a breakdown in communication, causing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.  This is a valid reason for withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)  Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

Counsel must serve the signed order (form MC-053), which shall include information about all future hearings and proceedings noticed by any party, or ordered by the Court, on Plaintiff and all other parties who have appeared in the action, within 10 days of the date of this Order, and file a proof of service of such.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record for Plaintiff until Counsel files the requisite proof of service.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)