Salazar v. George H. Maintenance CA2/4
Filed 1/27/14 Salazar v. George H. Maintenance CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
ANA SALAZAR, B248587
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC411628) v.
GEORGE H. MAINTENANCE et al.,
Defendants;
DAVID LEE,
Movant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard E. Rico, Judge. Affirmed. Mancini and Associates and Christopher Barnes for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lorraine A. Middleton for Movant and Respondent.
In this appeal from an order imposing sanctions (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (h)),1 plaintiff and appellant Ana Salazar contends that because the court allowed the deposition of respondent David Lee to be taken, the court denied Lee’s motion for a protective order, which eliminated any basis for sanctions. We conclude, however, that because the court granted Lee’s motion for a protective order, the court was authorized to impose sanctions.
BACKGROUND
In April 2009, Salazar filed a complaint for physical disability discrimination and wrongful termination against her former employer, defendant George H. Maintenance. During discovery, Salazar learned that George H. Maintenance was connected to numerous entities, including Nu-Century Maintenance, Inc. (Nu-Century) and its purported owner, Bruce Wang or Hwang (Hwang). After determining that Nu-Century had listed an address on 14th Street as its business address, Salazar sought to depose Lee, who owned the 14th Street property. After Lee was served with a nonparty deposition subpoena (§ 2020.010 et seq.), his attorney, Derek A. Simpson, attempted to learn why Lee’s deposition had been noticed. After Simpson ascertained that Salazar was interested in discovering Lee’s relationship with Nu-Century or Hwang, Simpson informed Salazar’s attorney that Lee had no knowledge or information concerning Nu-Century or Hwang. When Salazar refused to cancel Lee’s deposition, Lee moved for a protective order and sanctions under sections 2025.420, 2019.030, and 2017.010. In his supporting declaration, Lee explained that when he began renting the front house at the 14th Street property in June 2007, he did not know the other tenants or their occupations and never saw any sign of their involvement with a business named Nu-Century. When Lee purchased the 14th Street property in November 2008, there were no tenants named
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)