Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20STCV39132, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCV39132    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 40

20STCV39132 Arthur Toukhlandjian et al. v. Moushekh Petrosian, et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ATTEND DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

                                                                                              I.         BACKGROUND

      The first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff, Arthur Toukhlandjian (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, Moushekh Petrosian (“Defendant”) entered into a partnership for the purchase, renovation, and sale of real property using funds advanced by Plaintiff, AIAA Home Holdings, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to perform his contractual obligations to repay the funds advanced by AIAA and to distribute profits to Plaintiff. Plaintiffs allege claims for promissory estoppel, fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and to quiet title to real property.

                                                                                               II.        ARGUMENTS

      Defendant moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff scheduled for January 10, 2025.  Plaintiff’s counsel conveyed that he would not be able to attend because he was scheduled to be engaged in trial in two separate matters. Defendant requested the case numbers for the trials and new dates for the rescheduling of Plaintiff’s deposition. Defense counsel stated the deposition remained on calendar unless Plaintiff’s counsel provided that information.

      Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide the requested information until after the deposition, which went forward on January 10, 2025. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel appeared. Defendant requests imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel.

      The court’s record reflects Plaintiff did not file an opposition although the motion was timely served.

                                                                                                III.       DISCUSSION

      When a deponent fails to appear for deposition, the moving party must provide a declaration stating that the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the non-appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450 subd. (b)(2).) Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel on January 10, 2025, stating that Plaintiff was evacuated due to the fires and offered January 29 and 30 for the deposition to take place. (Def.'s Ex. H.) There is no evidence that defense counsel responded to this offer from Plaintiff’s counsel. The meet and confer declaration in support of the motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

                                                                                              IV.       CONCLUSION

      As the motion does not comply with the requirement to meet and confer to resolve the issues prior to seeking court intervention, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.