Ricky Thorstensen v. City of Palmdale, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 529) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT 529 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

CITY OF PALMDALE, ET AL. CROSS-DEFENDANT CITY OF PALMDALE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF CROSS-COMPLAINANT JJ MURPHY Date of Hearing: September 1, 2026 Trial Date: February 8, 2027 Department: 529 Case No.: 22STCV29463 Moving Party: Defendants City of Palmdale and Keith Kang Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant John J. Murphy

BACKGROUND On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff Ricky Thorstensen ("Plaintiff") filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against Defendants J.J. Murphy ("Defendant"); City of Palmdale; Keith Kang; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive. The SAC asserts six causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (2) harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (5) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against, harassed, and wrongfully terminated due to his age. Plaintiff worked for the City of Palmdale from May 24, 2021 through August 30, 2021. Defendant Murphy filed his Answer and a Cross-Complaint against Defendant City of Palmdale on May 1, 2024. On June 1, 2026, Plaintiff Ricky Thorstensen filed a Request for Dismissal of the complaint.

[Tentative] Ruling Cross-Defendant City of Palmdale's Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Cross-Complainant JJ Murphy is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS Cross-Defendant City of Palmdale moves this court for leave to take the deposition John J. Murphy on the grounds Murphy filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant City of Palmdale and the substance of the Cross-Complaint has never been the subject of a deposition. Any party may obtain any discovery of information, documents, land, property, or electronically stored information so long as the discoverable matter is not privileged, is relevant to the subject matter and can lead one to admissible evidence.¿(CCP Sec.2017.010.)

Pursuant to section 2025.610 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "[o]nce any party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent." (CCP Sec.2025.610(a).) However, under subdivision (b) of the same provision, a subsequent deposition of a deponent is permitted upon leave of the Court for "good cause shown." (CCP Sec.2025.610(b).)

Cross-Defendant argues John J. Murphy's deposition was noticed by Plaintiff Thorstensen, and was based on the underlying claims by Plaintiff Thorstensen. The deposition took place on November 11, 2024 and December 6, 2024 for a total time of approximately 5 and 1/2 hours. John J. Murphy filed a Cross-Complaint on May 1, 2024. Cross-Defendant contends the deposition was left open and Mr. Murphy's Cross-Complaint was not the subject of the deposition by Plaintiff Thorstensen.

Accordingly, City of Palmdale now wishes to depose Mr. Murphy on the issue raised by his Cross-Complaint and seeks an order for leave to conduct Mr. Murphy's deposition under the following conditions: (1) Murphy's deposition is limited to the issues of defense and indemnity raised by his Cross- Complaint; (2) there will be no repetitive examination of topics already covered; (3) the deposition will last no more than four (4) hours; and (4) the deposition will be over online video conferencing/Zoom. Cross-Defendant claims if the deposition is not allowed, Cross-Defendant will be severely prejudiced in its ability to defend against Mr. Murphy's allegations in his Cross-Complaint.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Murphy argues Dr. John Murphy has already been deposed during which Defendant City of Palmdale had the opportunity to question Dr. Murphy about his cross-claims. By the time the deposition had occurred, the cross-claims had been pending for over six months. Nothing has changed and as a result, there is no good cause to require Dr. Murphy to submit to another deposition.

The court notes in Palmdale's Reply, Palmdale states that on July 24, 2026--after Palmdale filed the instant motion--Murphy produced further discovery responses that demonstrates there is new evidence or changed circumstances that warrant another deposition. According to Palmdale, Murphy disclosed that many of his alleged requests for defense and indemnification were made orally, that he does not recall the specific dates of those communications, and that the oral requests were communicated to City representatives including Curley. Murphy further disclosed that, through his representatives, he orally responded to the City's January 23, 2023 letter by repeatedly demanding defense and indemnification and again identified Curley as a recipient of those communications.

Because new factual issues have been raised after the deposition of Dr. Murphy occurred, the court finds good cause to warrant the subsequent deposition. (See Carlson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 431, 434 emphasizing "[i]t would be an unwarranted limitation upon the discovery statutes to hold that they deny a litigant the right to inquire into matters relating to a new factual issue merely because she has taken depositions prior to the existence of the facts giving rise to that issue.")

The court finds denying a second deposition would leave Palmdale unable to fully investigate the factual basis for Murphy's affirmative claims, including the new information disclosed for the first time in discovery. The court also notes Palmdale contends the court need not adjudicate the document request as the parties can address any remaining document-production dispute through the procedures applicable to such discovery. As such, the court grants the motion as to the second deposition only.

Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendant City of Palmdale's Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Cross-Complainant JJ Murphy is GRANTED.

Case Number: 26STCV14988 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 529 CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., vs GREEN GARDEN, INC., et al. motion to strike answer Date of Hearing: September 1, 2026 Trial Date: None set. Department: 529 Case No.: 26STCV14988 Moving Party: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. Responding Party: No opposition.

BACKGROUND On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. filed a complaint against Green Garden, Inc. aka Green Garden Inc., George Chavez aka George Medina Chavez aka George M Chavez for breach of contract and personal guaranty.

[Tentative] Ruling Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves the court for an order striking the answer of Defendant Green Garden, Inc. aka Green Garden Inc. on the grounds that Defendant is a corporation and is attempting to appear in this action in propria persona in violation of the laws of the state of California and therefore, the court must strike Defendant's answer.

"[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation [or a limited liability company], unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record." (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) The rationale for this rule is that "a corporation, as an artificial entity created by law, can only act in its affairs through its natural person agents and representatives. If the corporate agent who would likely appear on behalf of the corporation in court proceedings, e.g., an officer or director, is not an attorney, that