Marvin Roberto Hernandez v. Marcela Arteaga

[2] Additionally, a settling tortfeasor's Sec. 877.6(c) good faith settlement determination discharges indemnity claims by other tortfeasors, whether or not named as parties to the action, provided they were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. (See Britz, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 177, 183; see also Gackstetter v. Frawley (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1273.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT MARVIN ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, vs. MARCELA ARTEAGA; DOES 1 TO 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendant. |)))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 24VECV00073 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION |

I. BACKGROUND Marvin Roberto Hernandez ("Plaintiff") filed this motor vehicle tort action against Marcela Arteaga ("Defendant"). Plaintiff alleges Defendant ran a red light and struck his vehicle as he was making a left turn. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff's deposition.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging (1) Negligence and (2) Motor Vehicle tort. On March 13, 2025, Defendant filed an Answer. On May 29, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Be Relieved. On August 13, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion. As of September 8, 2026, no opposition has been filed.

III. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2025.450(a) [1] provides, "[i]f, 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, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice."

Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2025.410(a), provides, "[a]ny party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with [the notice requirements in Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 2025.210 through 2025.290] waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served."

IV. MEET AND CONFER A motion to compel deposition must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference to resolve the issue, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450(b)(2).)

Defendant's counsel attests she mailed Plaintiff a meet and confer letter inquiring about his nonappearance and requesting Plaintiff to contact her to reschedule his deposition. (See Declaration of Jennifer S. Thomas filed August 13, 2026 ("Thomas Decl."), P. 11, Ex. H.) Thus, Defendant has satisfied her obligations.

V. ANALYSIS Defendant's counsel attests Plaintiff failed to appear for his noticed depositions on March 26, 2026, and May 11, 2026. (See i d., P.P. 7, 9-10.) Defendant asserts Plaintiff did not object to these depositions. (See Mot. at 5:26-6:1.) Defendant's counsel attests to date, Plaintiff has failed to reschedule his deposition. (See Thomas Decl., P. 12.)

The Court will deny the Motion. Trial is scheduled for September 23, 2026; the discovery motion cutoff date was September 8, 2026. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2024.020(a).) "A party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard...subdivision (a) of section 2024.050 specifically allows a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date by providing that the court may grant leave...to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set...in exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion the court must consider various factors..." (Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta Packaging Prods., Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 (cleaned up).)

Here, Defendant didn't file a motion for any relief available to it under Sec. 2024.050 or address the untimeliness of the instant motion in its moving papers.

VI. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 9, 2026 Hon. Michael R. Amerian Judge, Superior Court | [1] All statutory references are to California codes unless stated otherwise. Case Number: 25VECV00884 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: O Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is Granted. | Home -->)" -->