Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 21STCV11028 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

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.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for her deposition within 60-days of this ruling at a reasonable date, place and time, to be designated by the Defendant, per the CCP.

The court awards Defendant sanctions in the amount of $1,260. This reflects three (3) hours as the reasonable time incurred to prepare the motion, review the opposition, draft the reply, and attend the hearing in this case, plus the $60 filing fee. This sanction is stayed at this time, pending further order.

(a) 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.

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion 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.

Defendant Rodney Mesriani moves to compel Plaintiff, in pro per, to appear at her noticed deposition. Defendant also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff for her failure to appear.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff “refuses to appear for deposition,” “refuses to provide any available dates,” and has filed invalid objections. (Mtn. 3: 3-5.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed “to meet and confer regarding Potential settlement,” and failed to meet and confer before bringing this motion. (Opp. 2: 4-10.) She further contends that she has made “countless attempts to obtain [an] attorney,” but all were unsuccessful. (Id. 3: 18-20.)

Here, the court finds Defendant has made meaningful attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff to schedule a deposition, but to no avail. The court also agrees that Plaintiff’s objections to her deposition are inapplicable or otherwise invalid.

Accordingly, on good cause shown, Defendant’s Motions to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for her deposition within 60-days of this ruling at a reasonable date, place and time, to be designated by the Defendant, per the CCP.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 (g)(1), provides that, “[i]f a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanction unjust.”

It is well established that “[u]nder the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. [Citations.] ‘[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citation].” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247 [emphasis added].)

The court awards Defendant sanctions in the amount of $1,260. This reflects three (3) hours as the total reasonable time incurred to prepare the motion, review the opposition, draft the reply, and attend the hearing in this case, plus the $60 filing fee. This sanction is stayed at this time pending further order.

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.