Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV22831, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22831    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 9, 2024              TRIAL DATE: May 28, 2024

CASE:                         Deborah Gollette, et al. v. Deborah Ketcham, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV22831           

MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING DEPOSITION FEES OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINED EXPERTS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Chris Ketcham.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Deborah Gollette and Rachel Gollette

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a landlord-tenant action that was filed on September 2, 2022. Plaintiffs, who are tenants in apartments owned by Defendants, allege that Defendants refused to repair numerous serious habitability defects on the subject premises. Plaintiffs further allege that, following Plaintiffs’ complaints and an alleged citation by the City of Bellflower, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs by serving an eviction notice.

Defendant Chris Ketcham moves for an order specially setting the deposition fees of Plaintiffs’ retained experts.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Chris Ketcham moves for an order specially setting the deposition fees of Plaintiffs’ retained experts.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.470 authorizes a party seeking to depose an expert witness to move for an order setting the compensation of that expert if the party “deems that the hourly or daily fee of that expert for providing deposition testimony is unreasonable.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.470(a).) However, “[n]otice of this motion shall also be given to the expert.” (Id [emphasis added].)

Although Defendant’s amended proof of service filed March 1, 2024 states that this motion was served on Plaintiffs’ counsel via email on February 1, 2024, none of Defendant’s papers provide any indication that notice was served on the experts whose rates are challenged.

On March 8, 2024, the Court ordered counsel for Defendant to serve the experts who are the subject of this motion with the moving papers and to give notice to all parties in the action, and continued this matter to April 9, 2024. (March 8, 2024 Minute Order.) Three of Plaintiff’s experts state they were never served with the moving papers. (Declaration of Monica Martinez ISO Objection ¶ 3; Declaration of Jose Luis Barrera ISO Objection ¶ 3; Declaration of Chris Rocha ISO Objection ¶ 3.) Defendant, in response, provides no proof that the experts were served with the moving papers. Instead, Defendant merely claims that the experts receiving notice of the hearing is sufficient to satisfy its statutory obligations.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 expressly states that a notice of motion must be accompanied by any papers upon which it is based if those papers have not previously been served upon the party to be notified. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.) A notice of motion which is not accompanied by these papers is deficient as a matter of law. (Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 320-21 [motion to compel further responses to deposition was untimely because notice of motion, although served within the statutory time period, was unaccompanied by moving papers and therefore deficient].) Moreover, notwithstanding the requirements of the statute, the Court explicitly ordered Defendant to serve the experts with the moving papers. Defendant did not do so. Defendant therefore is not entitled to an order specially setting the deposition fees of Plaintiff’s experts.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Order Specially Setting Deposition Fees of Plaintiffs’ Retained Experts is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2024.                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@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.