Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV16477, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16477    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

TAMECA SHAVON THOMAS and DONALD RAY THOMAS, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

JAMES CALVIN GARRETT, II, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV16477 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

April 16, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendant James Calvin Garrett, II (“Defendant”) moves to compel plaintiffs Tameca Shavon Thomas and Donald Ray Thomas (“Plaintiffs”) to appear for their deposition and to pay monetary sanctions.  

As of October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs are in pro per. Any opposition was due on or before April 3, 2024; none was filed.  

 

II. DISCUSSION 

Defense counsel declares that the initial scheduled depositions, for the first two deposition notices, were taken off calendar after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted. Thereafter, Defendant served third amended notices for Plaintiffs’ depositions, unilaterally setting it for December 12, 2023. Plaintiffs did not appear and Defendant took certificates of non-appearance. 

The Court is unable to proceed on the merits of the motion at this time due to a procedural deficiency. 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.” (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).) 

Here, Defendant has failed to submit a meet and confer declaration stating that defense counsel contacted the deponents to inquire about the nonappearances pursuant to CCP § 2025.450(b)(2). Defendant only provides Plaintiffs failed to appear, and that Plaintiffs never contacted Defendant regarding their availabilities. There is no evidence that Defendant had attempted to reach out to Plaintiffs after their counsel had been relieved from representation. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

The motion is therefore denied. The denial is without prejudice as to Defendant re-filing the motion with the required meet and confer declaration. 

 

Moving party 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 15th day of April 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court