Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV23537, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23537    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

LISA CHAN and KURT SELBACH, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

LYFT, INC., ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV23537 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

April 23, 2024 

 

Plaintiffs Lisa Chan and Kurt Selbach (“Selbach”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move to compel defendant Jake Mungaray (“Mungaray”) to appear for his deposition and to pay monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs contend they served a deposition notice on Mungaray to take place on November 30, 2023, but Mungaray’s counsel stated their unavailability just a day before the deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel followed-up twice with Mungaray’s counsel in December and January regarding the deposition, and avers he did not receive a response. Plaintiffs therefore filed the instant motion.  

In opposition, Mungaray contends his deposition is not in dispute because Mungaray’s counsel, at all times, cooperated with the scheduling of his deposition. Mungaray’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the motion, and expressed that Mungaray was available on any date between February 15 to February 29. Mungaray’s counsel further avers that Plaintiff’s counsel stated he only filed the motion to preserve the hearing date in case Mungaray’s deposition did not move forward. However, before the deposition could be rescheduled, Plaintiff’s counsel substituted out of the case, and Plaintiffs are now in pro per. Counsel contacted pro per Plaintiffs regarding Mungaray’s deposition. Plaintiff Selbach returned the call, stating that discovery and the deposition would be “on hold” for now. Thus, Mungaray contends there is no basis for this motion to compel. 

As of April 16, 2024, no reply has been filed.  

Here, the Court reviewed the exhibits provided by the parties, including Mungaray’s counsel’s confirming email to pro per Plaintiffs regarding the telephonic conversation held with plaintiff Selbach, who indicated the deposition scheduling should be on hold. (Opp. Exh. D.) There is no reply disputing the facts surrounding this matter. Accordingly, the motion to compel Mungaray’s deposition and the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.  

 

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 22nd day of April 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court