Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV09657, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV09657    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Carlos Alonso filed Case No. 19STCV09657 against defendants Access Services, Incorporated, et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Case Nos. 19STCV09657, 20STCV13206 and 20STCV13191 arise out of the same automobile accident and have been consolidated.  (Min. Order Sept. 1, 2021.) 

At this time, Defendant Krishaun Holbert (“Holbert”) moves to compel Plaintiff Khaliah Farwell’s (“Farwell”) deposition.  The motion is unopposed.

Additionally, Holbert moves to consolidate this action with Case No. 20STLC02799.  On March 29, 2023, Holbert’s ex parte application to specially set the hearing on her motion to consolidate was granted with the motion being set for hearing on April 27, 2023.  Any opposition or reply papers were to be filed and served per CCP § 1005.  Holbert filed and served notice of this ruling on March 29, 2023.  On April 14, 2023, Holbert filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion to consolidate.  

2. Motion to Compel Deposition

CCP § 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  CCP § 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds a valid objection was served under §2025.410.

A motion to compel deposition “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

Here, Holbert asserts that on February 24, 2022, Holbert noticed Farwell’s deposition for March 14, 2022.  Holbert states that Farwell did not appear for the deposition, and a certificate of non-appearance was taken.  (Mot. Exh. C.)  Following Holbert’s filing of a previous motion to compel Farwell’s deposition, which was denied without prejudice, (Min. Order, Sept. 15, 2022), Farwell appeared for her videoconference deposition on September 28, 2022.  However, Holbert provides that Farwell had a seven-month-old baby in her care that posed a distraction and prevented the deposition from being completed.  Holbert asserts that while on the record, Farwell’s and Holbert’s counsel agreed to reschedule Plaintiff’s deposition within two weeks.  Holbert contends that despite multiple attempts to meet and confer, Farwell has not provided any dates for her deposition.  Holbert, thus, avers that Farwell has failed to appear for her deposition.  Any opposition was due on or before April 14, 2023.  To date, no opposition has been filed. 

The motion to compel is unopposed and granted.  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)  Plaintiff Khaliah Farwell is ordered to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Defendant Holbert.  Holbert must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). 

Holbert further requests sanctions of $2,110.00.  However, Holbert does not identify against whom the sanctions are sought in the notice of motion.  “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.”  (CCP § 2023.040.)  The request for sanctions is therefore denied. 

3. Motion to Consolidate Actions

Holbert moves for an order consolidating this action with Maria Ortiz v. Krishaun Holbert, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STLC02799, which, similarly, arises from the same automobile collision as this case.  Case Nos. 19STCV09657 and 20STLC02799 have been deemed related and are pending in this Department.  (Min. Order, Jan. 30, 2023.) 

The motion is procedurally deficient.  The motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, 3.350, which requires a copy of the notice of motion to be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).)  The Court’s records show that the notice of motion was not filed in 20STLC02799.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.  The denial is without prejudice to Holbert re-filing the motion after complying with all Rules of Court or all necessary parties’ submission of a stipulation to consolidate the actions. 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 27^th day of April 2023