Mariam Bishara v. Rodney Mesriani

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE AND TO STAY DEPOSITION

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mariam Bishara 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Rodney Mesriani

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff in pro per Mariam Bishara brought this action against her former attorney, Rodney Mesriani, alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant represented her in a legal action against her former employer.  In doing so, he assisted her in mediating and entering a settlement agreement. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant forced to sign the settlement agreement without giving Plaintiff enough time to review and comprehend it. 

Plaintiff now moves for an order to quash the notice of deposition and to stay the deposition.  Defendant opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Stay Deposition is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

Defendant to give notice, unless waived.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Quash Deposition Notice

Analysis

On December 5, 2022, this court granted Defendant’s Motion to compel Plaintiff’s appearance at her deposition and ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 60-days of the ruling at a reasonable date, place and time, to be designated by Defendant. (See Minute Order, 12/5/2022.) 

Plaintiff now moves to quash the deposition subpoena.  While Plaintiff’s stated objections to her deposition again are essentially unclear ramblings and are without merit, the motion fails procedurally:  There is no pending “notice” of deposition, and thus nothing to quash. (Brooks Decl. ¶ 2.)  This Court has already ORDERED this deposition.  The Plaintiff is not free to disregard or “quash” that order.  There is also no adequate basis or reason to "stay" that order.

In short and in plain language so there is no misunderstanding by the Plaintiff:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and/or Stay is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

If Plaintiff willfully fails to comply with this Court’s previous Order by continuing to  refuse to appear for her deposition, THIS CASE WILL BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Enough is enough.

Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2025.410(d).)

Defendant has not provided a declaration attesting to the time spent opposing the motion or to his hourly rats. Based on the facts, the time incurred to prepare the opposition is certainly de minimis. 

Accordingly, the court declines to award sanctions, finding the circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   March 9, 2023 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.