Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case 19STCV01865 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

On an unspecified date in 1989, Plaintiff Manuel Santana purchased certain property at 24522 Spruce Street in Santa Clarita. The property is identified as “The Historical Jailhouse,” a 1906 constructed facility representing the first jailhouse for the Santa Clarita Valley. Following the purchase, Santana created The Manuel Santana Family Trust of 1992.

According to Plaintiffs, the City of Santa Clarita recognized the “historical significance” of the structure by the structure on December 6, 2007, thereby rendering it immune from demolition or alteration. Prior, concurrent or following the historical designation, in 2007, the City of Santa Clarita also unveiled its plan to construct a new library “directly adjacent” to “The Historical Jailhouse.” The City purchased all surrounding properties, and offered Plaintiffs $300,000 for the property as well. Plaintiffs rejected the offer.

Project planning and construction began in 2009. A third party identified as Seward was designated as the entity responsible “to oversee protection of the site.” According to Plaintiffs, the parties responsible for the development of the site failed to adhere to the “Seward Plan,” thereby allowing “hazardous substances and water moisture to emanate inside the building.”

Plaintiffs allege that the parties agreed to a five-year statute of limitations for the filing of a claim from March 22, 2013. Notwithstanding the 2013, Plaintiffs allege the timely filing of their administrative claim on March 19, 2019 [First Amend. Compl., ¶¶ 33-34]. The claim was rejected by the City of Santa Clarita.

On January 18, 2019 and May 29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Negligence, Gross Negligence, Strict Liability, Absolute Liability, Trespass, Nuisance, Unjust Enrichment, and Battery. On August 29, 2019, the action was transferred to Department 49 from Department 4A. On September 11, 2019, the court granted the ex parte motion dismissing the claims for attorney fees and punitive damages against the City of Santa Clarita, and extended the time for the filing of a responsive pleading.

On October 15, 2019, City of Santa Clarita answered and filed its cross-complaint for Breach of Contract, Contractual Indemnity, Equitable Indemnity, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Apportionment of Fault (Declaratory Relief), Equitable Contribution, and Indemnity Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.6. City of Santa Clarita named R.C. Becker and Son, Inc. Tobo Construction, Inc., Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., and Landmark American Ins. Co. The insurance defendants are only named in the third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eight causes of action for Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Apportionment of Fault (Declaratory Relief), Equitable Contribution, and Indemnity Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.6.

City of Santa Clarita specifically alleges that defendant contractors R.C. Becker and Son, Inc. and Tobo Construction, Inc. entered into “Redevelopment Agency Agreement for Capital Improvement Project” agreements. Article V and VIII requires cross-defendants indemnify the City of Santa Clarita against any all claims arising from the project, and require the procurement of an insurance policy designating City of Santa Clarita as an additional insured. On June 1, 2010, Cross-Defendant Ironshore Insurance Co. issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance for R.C. Becker. On December 24, 2010, Cross-Defendant Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance for its insured, Tobo Construction, Inc. On June 17, 2011, Cross-Defendant Landmark Ins. Co. issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance for Tobo Construction, Inc. Defendant Valley Forge Insurance Company is an alleged insurer of R.C. Becker.[1]

On March 12, 2019, City of Santa Clarita tendered its indemnity claim and/or defenses to the cross-defendant contractors. On August 28, 2019, Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. denied the claim. On December 19, 2019, Valley Forge denied the claim. R.C. Becker and Son, Inc. provided no response.

On July 2, 2020, City of Santa Clarita filed its first amended cross-complaint Breach of Contract, Contractual Indemnity, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Equitable Indemnity, Apportionment of Fault (Declaratory Relief), Equitable Contribution, and Indemnity Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.6.

On January 13, 2021, R.C. Becker and Son, Inc. answered the first amended cross-complaint from City of Santa Clarita, and filed a cross-complaint for Implied Indemnity, Comparative Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief on January 15, 2021. On February 3, 2021, the court overruled the demurrer of Landmark American Insurance Company to the Cross-Complaint of City of Santa Clarita. On March 5, 2021, Tobo Construction, Inc. answered the City of Santa Clarita cross-complaint, and filed a cross-complaint for Express Indemnity, Equitable Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief.

Cross-Defendant R.C. Becker and Son, Inc. moves to compel the deposition of plaintiff Manuel Santana.[2] Cross-Defendant contends service of “at least four separate deposition notices,” all without an apparent agreement.

The motion comes after the July 26, 2022 order compelling deposition on the motion brought by the City of Santa Clarita, whereby the court gave the parties 45 days to establish dates, and complete the deposition within 60 days. The court also noted that moving cross-defendant may be permitted to join in the scheduling of a joint deposition session, but nothing bars cross-defendant from making this independent motion.

As of the tentative ruling publication cutoff, the court shows no opposition or new reply to the motion.

A party may file a motion to compel deposition upon a non-appearance of the noticed party. “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 … the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony…” (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) A party must object to a deposition no less than three calendar days before deposition date. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.410, subd. (b).)

The motion incorporates a declaration regarding both the necessity of taking Plaintiff’s deposition and meet and confer efforts to schedule the deposition. [Declaration of Michael Larin] (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (b).) The motion therefore complies with all procedural requirements.

The unopposed motion is granted. As with the prior order, the court therefore orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the setting of deposition date within 45 days of this order. The parties may decide on an in-person or remote method, if any party is concerned with Covid exposure. The deposition is to take place within the next 45 days unless the parties agree to an extension of time. If Plaintiff refuses to cooperate in the setting of a date within 30 days of this order, cross-defendant may unilaterally pick a date. If Plaintiff fails to appear for either the agreed upon date or unilaterally selected date, cross-defendant may take a notice of non-appearance and present this as part of a motion for evidentiary, issue or even terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (h).)

Multiple motions for summary judgment current set to begin on September 20, 2022.[3]

[1]Cross-Complainant only identifies Valley Forge as an insurer of R.C. Becker. It’s not clear from the operative cross-complaint whether Valley Forge issued any certificate of insurance and/or when.

[2]Although the caption of the motion lists a July 26, 2022 hearing date, the court electronic filing system actually shows the reservation date for August 23, 2022.

[3]September 20, 2022 is only reserved, but not filed.