Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions of (1) Defendant's person(s) most qualified on the matters set forth in that notice (noticed for July 23, 2026); (2) Micah Mosqueda and (3) Ashley Haynes; and (4) Juan Solorio
Improper service is properly challenged by a motion to quash. (Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 855, fn. 4; Code Civ. Proa., Sec. 418.10(a)(1).) Here, Defendant Groppetti Ltd., Inc argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over it because Plaintiff has connected Defendant Groppetti Ltd., Inc to Nissan of Visalia, where no such affiliation exists and where Shel-Don, Inc. is the corporation doing business as Nissan of Visalia.
"When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process 'the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.'" (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) As no opposition has been filed, Plaintiff has not met its burden in opposing the motion to quash. Therefore, the Court grants the motion.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Hunt, Norma vs. IN-N-OUT Burgers Case No: VCU324892 Date: August 11, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman Motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions of (1) Defendant's person(s) most qualified on the matters set forth in that notice (noticed for July 23, 2026); (2) Micah Mosqueda and (3) Ashley Haynes; and (4) Juan Solorio Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to order the depositions occur prior to August 17, 2026; to impose sanctions of $760 on Defendant, and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing.
Facts
In this premises liability matter, Plaintiff sues Defendant In-N-Out Burgers. On June 22, 2026 Plaintiff served deposition notices, each with an accompanying demand for production of documents, setting the depositions as follows: Micah Mosqueda on July 20, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.; Ashley Haynes on July 20, 2026 at 1:00 p.m.; Juan Solorio on July 21, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.; and Defendant's person(s) most qualified on July 23, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant, on July 16, 2026, emailed Plaintiff stating the witnesses would not be produced as unilaterally noticed by Plaintiff and on July 17, 2026, Defendant indicated it would stipulate to liability and asserted the depositions were therefore moot. Defendant did not serve any written objection to any of the deposition notices under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, and did not move for a protective order under section 2025.420. Each of the deponents failed to attend the depositions as noticed. Plaintiff, as to each deposition, obtained a notice of non-appearance.
On July 28, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel emailed Defendant's counsel of record, inquiring as to the failures of the deponents to appear. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to compel the depositions of the deponents noted above, and for sanctions in the amount of $9,060, consisting of 12 hours at the rate of $750 per hour. No opposition has been filed. Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition.
Authority and Analysis
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 states: "(a) 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."
"(b)(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance." (emphasis added)
A motion to compel a deposition must be accompanied "by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) No traditional meet and confer was required by law. As Rutter notes, "No 'meet and confer' is required where the deponent 'fails to attend the deposition ....' In such cases, all that is required is a declaration by the moving party that he or she has contacted the deponent 'to inquire about the nonappearance.'" (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial [The Rutter Group 2023], P. 8:813 [quoting Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.450, subd. (b)(2)].)
Proper service of a notice of deposition is effective to require the attendance of parties and "an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party" as well as compelling production of specified documents or electronically stored information at their deposition. (C.C.P., Sec. 2025.280(a).) Even serving an objection based on unavailability or unilateral setting does not impose a stay on a notice of deposition and is not a substitute for a protective order. (Snyder v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 579, 586 [applying former Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2021]; Carl v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 73,76.)
Although Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, subdivision (b), provides that any deposition taken after the timely service of a valid objection cannot be used against the objecting party if the party did not attend the deposition, such objection mentioned in section 2025.410 relates to an error or irregularity in a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210). (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450(a).)
The types of objections contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.210 et seq., deal with procedural requirements such as when a defendant or plaintiff may serve a deposition notice (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.210), the contents required to be included in a deposition notice (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2025.220, 2025.230), to whom notice of the deposition must be given (CCP Sec. 2025.240), the location of the deposition (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2025.250, 2025.260), the number of days required to be given in advance of the deposition (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.270), and the manner of service upon party deponents (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.280.)
Here, as to each deponent, the Court finds a properly served notice, no objection by Defendant, no protective order sought by Defendant, that Plaintiff obtained notices of non-appearance as to each deponent and Plaintiff's counsel's inquired as to the failure to appear. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and compels the depositions of Micah Mosqueda, Ashley Haynes, Juan Solorio, Defendant's person(s) most qualified. The depositions shall occur prior to August 17, 2026.
If the depositions cannot be completed prior to August 17, 2026, the Court grants the alternative relief requested by Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(a) to complete these depositions closer to the September 14, 2026, trial date. The Court finds sufficient necessity to the discovery sought and notes this is the initial trial date in the matter. Further, that Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient diligence regarding these depositions via attempts to coordinate dates with Defendant starting in April 2026.
Sanctions
As to sanctions, section 2025.040(g)(1), which states "...the court shall impose monetary sanctions under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent...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."
First, the Court will reduce the hourly rate to $350. The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work." (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) "The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court." (Id.) Next, the Court does not award anticipated hours. Further, as to the 8 hours spent preparing the motion, the Court will reduce this time to two hours total.
As the court has said at recent hearings in this matter, the defense should have responded more promptly and directly to plaintiff's attempts to schedule depositions, and plaintiff should have moved more promptly to seek these depositions in the face of this defense recalcitrance. Plaintiff did not do so until the eve of trial. The court will not reward this negligence with the substantial sanctions requested. Also, from the comments made at the hearing last Friday, it appeared both sides are now working diligently to schedule these depositions.
Therefore, the Court will award a total of $760, consisting of 2 hours at the rate of $350 plus the $60 filing fee. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant, and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, and due no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Visalia Division Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2 Examiner notes for probate matters calendared August 12, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc. Case Number | Case Name | Type | Status | Comments | VPR053997 | In the Matter of Garcia Romero, Yanexil Eberardo | Appoint Conservator | Appearance Required |