Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV31985, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31985    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IS GRANTED 

Background 

On August 21, 2020, Plaintiff So Cal Product Solutions LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Intentional Misrepresentation, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, (4) Violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), (5) Unfair Business Practices against Defendants Daniel Karayan (“Karayan”), Karayan Consulting Group (“KCG”), and Cedar Business Services, LLC (“CBS”). 

On February 5, 2021, Defendant Karayan (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) filed a Cross-complaint (“XC”) asserting causes of action (1) breach of written contract, (2) quantum meruit, (3) account stated, (4) book account, and (5) declaratory relief against Plaintiff, SCPS Unlimited LLC (“SCPS”), Craig Currie (“Craig”), Doris Samantha Currie (“Doris”), and CBS. 

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the fourth cause of action for violations of the FDCPA from the Complaint. 

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Daniel Karayan and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,611.45 to which no opposition was filed. 

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 also “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce documents…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)¿¿¿ 

Discussion 

Motion to Compel Deposition 

Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Defendant Daniel Karayan to appear for deposition and to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,911.45 for his failure to appear at two prior noticed depositions. 

Before Defendant Karayan’s former counsel withdrew from the case, the parties had agreed that Karayan would be deposed on July 7, 2022. (Mintz Decl. ¶¶ 1-5., Ex. A, B.) Karayan failed to appear at the deposition, and a certificate of nonappearance was taken. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. C.) Plaintiff reached out to Karayan inquiring about his failure to appear at the noticed deposition and to try to schedule a new deposition date. (Id. ¶ 7, Ex. D.) Karayan did not respond. 

On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff personally served a fourth amended deposition notice on Karayan with the deposition scheduled for August 17, 2022. (Mintz Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. E, F.) Karayan again failed to appear at the deposition. (Id. ¶ 10, Ex. G.) 

Given that Defendant Karayan has failed to appear at duly noticed deposition and has failed to file any opposition to the noticed depositions or to this Motion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Karayan is GRANTED. 

Sanctions 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 subdivision (g)(1) in pertinent part states that if a motion to compel is granted “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with¿Section 2023.010) 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 the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  

Plaintiff requests $5,911.45 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Karayan for the fees and costs Plaintiff previously incurred scheduling Defendant Karayan’s two prior depositions. 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $395.00. (Mintz Decl. ¶ 11.) 2.0 hours to perform legal research, 1.5 hours to gather relevant exhibits, 3.0 hours to draft this instant motion and 1.75 hours to draft the declaration, and another 2.0 hours to prepare for an appearance at the hearing. (Id.) In total, 10.25 hours were spent on this motion and the hearing. 

The Court finds the amount billed for an unopposed motion to compel is excessive and awards $790.00 for 2.0 hours of work billed at $395.00 per hour. 

Plaintiff spent $442.50 for personal service of the fourth amended deposition notice, $707.60 for the certificate of nonappearance for the July 07, 2022, deposition, and $712.60 for the August 17, 2022 deposition. In addition, costs included a $16.68 filing fee and $61.65 to reserve the hearing on this motion. 

 In total, the Court awards $2,288.03 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Daniel Karayan. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiff SO CAL PRODUCTS SOLUTIONS LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant Daniel Karayan’s Deposition is GRANTED and awards Plaintiff $2,288.03 in sanctions against Defendant Karayan. 

The Court further ORDERS Defendant Karayan appear at deposition within the next 45 days as may be scheduled by Plaintiff. 

Moving party to give notice.