Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 21TRCV00381, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

On May 20, 2021, Sean Lamont Dent, Sir, Sean Lamont Dent Jr, Icolin Joy Gayle, Talal Omar, and Musa Ali Eisa filed a complaint against Miguel Angel Valle for (1) self-help, (2) conversion, (3) trespass, (4) breach of warranty of habitability, (5) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (6) nuisance, (7) negligence, (8) premises liability, (9) unfair competition/unfair business practice, and (10) IIED. Plaintiffs allege that defendant is the owner, agent, and manager of the apartment building located at 10507 S. Inglewood Avenue. Plaintiffs allege a rodent infestation, inadequate garbage facilities, defective stairs, inadequate gas facilities, no running hot water, inoperable heater, lack of utilities, no smoke detectors, defective wiring/outlets, defective plumbing, flooding, and mold/mildew. Plaintiffs also allege that on January 22, 2021, while plaintiffs Dent Sr. and Jr. were not at home, defendant entered the subject property, changed the locks, and locked the doors to the property with keys and lock preventing plaintiffs from entering the unit. They also allege Defendant carried away, misappropriated, or discarded plaintiffs’ personal property and unlawfully demanded rent.

Defendant asserts in his “Brief Facts of the Case” submitted in connection with the August, 2024 Final Status Conference that Plaintiffs’ claims arose years before he became the owner of the subject property.

Defendant now moves in pro per, apparently to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2023, Miguel Angel Valle filed this “Motion to Compel” which apparently seeks to take the Depositions of the Plaintiffs. On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On November 7th and 8th, 2023, Miguel Angel Valle filed reply briefs.

II. ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) provides:

“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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Discussion

Defendant is moving in pro per and appears to be moving for an order to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs. Defendant notes that he sent an email on January 12, 2023 to counsel for Plaintiffs requesting him to give Defendant a date when the Plaintiffs could all be available to conduct a deposition but counsel did not respond to Defendant’s emails or phone calls. Defendant asserts Plaintiffs’ counsel is not acting in good faith. No notice of deposition was attached as required by the first clause of Section 2025.450(a), no declaration of Mr. Valle was attached as required for any motion, and no supporting brief or memorandum of points and authorities accompanied the motion to compel, which is also required for any motion.

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s motion is untimely as the last trial date was set for October 17, 2023, and the initial discovery cutoff date was September 17, 2023. Plaintiffs contend that at their last hearing with this Court, the date of trial was only continued because the Court had other cases with priority over the case at bar. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant has not requested this court to reopen or extend the discovery cutoff date and the Court did not do so on its own motion. Plaintiffs further argue that Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.220 required Defendant to give notice to Plaintiffs in compliance with the section, but Defendant did not issue any deposition notice to Plaintiffs’ attorney and the email communication sent by Defendant did not satisfy this requirement. The Court agrees. Regardless of whether a party has a lawyer or is proceeding without one, all sides must comply with California procedural law. Before the Court can compel a deposition, Mr. Valle needs to have properly noticed a deposition, must made a good faith effort to meet and confer before filing a discovery motion, and the motion papers must be supported by admissible evidence such as a declaration and have a brief or memorandum of points and authorities supporting the requested remedy from the Court. Mr. Valle’s motion lacks all of these things. The motion is thus procedurally defective in many ways.

As Defendant is moving in pro per, the Court will allow Defendant to present oral argument bearing on his motion and what he would next like to do. The Court cannot give either side legal advice but the Court can encourage Mr. Valle to find legal assistance to help him better prepare to defend himself. With trial a month away and Mr. Valle having failed to present a viable motion to compel depositions, he could use some assistance.

Sanctions

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant should be sanctioned in the amount of $1,575.50 in favor of Plaintiff for filing a meritless and frivolous motion. As Defendant is operating in pro per, the Court will discuss sanctions at the hearing. However, the Court’s tentative ruling is to DENY Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. Most defendants being sued in court would prefer to know what the plaintiffs are likely to present as evidence at trial, and depositions are one of many methods of obtaining the same. This makes the thrust of the motion non-frivolous even if it is procedurally defective.