Judge Robert S. Draper, Case 19STCV34123 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF VICTORIA LE.

Defendants Mid-Century Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Group’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Victoria Le is GRANTED.

Defendants Mid-Century Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Group’s Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff Victoria Le and Plaintiff’s Counsel is GRANTED jointly and severally in the amount of $1,480.00. Sanctions are due within 5 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice within one day and to file proof of service of such notice within five days after the date of this order.

This is an action for recovery of an Attorney Lien. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Law Offices of London & Le (“L&L”) is the successor law firm of London, Nguyen and Le (“LN&L”). (FAC ¶ 2.) In 2015, LN&L entered into a written contract with Cross-Defendant Guadalupe Contreras (“Contreras”) whereby LN&L would be owed 33.33% of any settlement obtained in a personal injury action in which LN&L represented Contreras. (Compl. ¶ 5.) As part of the written contract, LN&L was granted a lien on any recovery by way of settlement or judgment. (FAC ¶ 6.) On January 5, 2016, LN&L notified Defendant Farmers Insurance Group (“Farmers”) of this lien.

After LN&L successfully litigated the case for Contreras, she obtained alternative counsel, who obtained the $150,000 in settlement funds from Defendants. (FAC ¶ 9.) Farmers, despite knowledge of the lien, failed to protect Plaintiffs’ equitable assignment. (FAC ¶ 13.)

Also on April 24, 2020, Mid-Century filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Omar S. Angora, The Angora Law Firm, Inc., and Guadalupe Contreras. The Cross-Complaint asserts four causes of action:

On January 19, 2023, defendants Mid-Century Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Group (together, “Defendants”) filed the instant Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Victoria Le (“Le”).

Defendants move to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Victoria Le pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 subd. a.

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action…, 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.

Here, Defendants note that they have noticed the deposition of plaintiff Victoria Le three times, and all three times Le has filed untimely objections. Additionally, Defendants note that Le has refused to provide dates on which she would be available for her deposition, despite Defendants’ repeated requests.

On June 1, 2021, Defendants served the Notice of Taking the Deposition of Plaintiff Le to be held remotely on June 25, 2021. (Firouzi Decl. ¶ 1; Exh. A.) On June 23, 2021, Le filed a late objection to the Notice of Deposition. (Id. ¶ 2; Exh. B.) On June 24, 2021, Defendants’ Counsel sent Le's Counsel a meet and confer regarding the objections, and requesting a date upon which Le would be free for her deposition. (Id. ¶ 4.) Le provided no such date. (Ibid.)

Finally, on December 21, 2022, Defendants’ Counsel sent a letter to Le’s Counsel requesting her availability for a deposition; Le did not respond, necessitating the filing of this motion. (Id. ¶ 12; Exh. K.)

As Le has repeatedly failed to appear for her deposition, has repeatedly failed to provide Defendants with dates for her deposition, and has presented no argument regarding the validity of her objections, an order compelling Le’s appearance for deposition is proper.

Next, Defendants request monetary sanctions against Le and Le’s Counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(g)(1).

Section 2025.450(g)(1) requires that the Court impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent.

Here, Defense Counsel requests $1,850.00 in sanctions, representing 10 hours of attorney time required to prepare the noticed depositions and draft the instant motion billed at $185.00 per hour. (Firouzi Decl. ¶ 13.)

The Court finds the billable rate reasonable. However, the Court notes that the requested hours include Defense Counsel’s anticipation of three hours reviewing Plaintiffs’ Opposition and drafting a Reply, and for appearance at the instant hearing. (Ibid.) As no Opposition has been filed, the Court deducts two hours from this amount.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Request for Monetary Sanctions against Le and Le’s Counsel is GRANTED in the amount of $1,480.00.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Victoria Le is GRANTED. Le is to appear for deposition within five days of this hearing.

Defendants’ Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff Victoria Le and Plaintiff Victoria Le’s Counsel is GRANTED in the amount of $1,480.00.