On July 15, 2019 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Schneider Michele Marie,
and
Fierro Irene Gutierrez,
Fierro Rudy,
for Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g., assault, battery, vandalism, etc.) (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 31
19STCV24550 March 16, 2021
MICHELE MARIE SCHNEIDER vs RUDY FIERRO, et al. 1:30 PM
Judge: Honorable Thomas D. Long CSR: See Below
Judicial Assistant: L. Klein ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Robert Andrew Clancy (LA Court Connect)
For Defendant(s): Wilfredo Trivino-Perez (LA Court Connect)
Other Appearance Notes: Rudy Fierro also appears this date by LA Court Connect
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Sanctions; Trial Setting Conference
Matter is called for hearing.
After reading and considering all papers submitted and argument of counsel, the Court adopts its
amended tentative as the Court's order as follows:
The deposition of defendant shall be noticed to take place no earlier than 4-26-2021.
Plaintiff, Michele Marie Schneider (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant, Rudy Fierro
(“Defendant”) deposition. Plaintiff asserts she has noticed Defendant’s deposition multiple times.
Most recently, on 10/19/20, Plaintiff noticed Defendant’s deposition for 11/30/20. Plaintiff
provides that Defendant did not appear for the deposition on 11/30/20. Plaintiff provides
Plaintiff’s counsel then called Defendant’s counsel, and defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s
counsel defense counsel would be taking no further action in this matter and would be seeking to
withdraw.
CCP § 2025.450(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.”
Here, Plaintiff asserts she met and conferred with Defendant regarding Defendant’s failure to
appear for his 11/30 deposition. Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant to appear for
deposition.
Minute Order Page 1 of 3
Document Filed Date
March 16, 2021
Case Filing Date
July 15, 2019
Category
Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g., assault, battery, vandalism, etc.) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Default Judgment By Court - Before Trial 01/05/2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 31 19STCV24550 March 16, 2021 MICHELE MARIE SCHNEIDER vs RUDY FIERRO, et al. 1:30 PM Judge: Honorable Thomas D. Long CSR: See Below Judicial Assistant: L. Klein ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Robert Andrew Clancy (LA Court Connect) For Defendant(s): Wilfredo Trivino-Perez (LA Court Connect) Other Appearance Notes: Rudy Fierro also appears this date by LA Court Connect NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Sanctions; Trial Setting Conference Matter is called for hearing. After reading and considering all papers submitted and argument of counsel, the Court adopts its amended tentative as the Court's order as follows: The deposition of defendant shall be noticed to take place no earlier than 4-26-2021. Plaintiff, Michele Marie Schneider (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant, Rudy Fierro (“Defendant”) deposition. Plaintiff asserts she has noticed Defendant’s deposition multiple times. Most recently, on 10/19/20, Plaintiff noticed Defendant’s deposition for 11/30/20. Plaintiff provides that Defendant did not appear for the deposition on 11/30/20. Plaintiff provides Plaintiff’s counsel then called Defendant’s counsel, and defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel defense counsel would be taking no further action in this matter and would be seeking to withdraw. CCP § 2025.450(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.” Here, Plaintiff asserts she met and conferred with Defendant regarding Defendant’s failure to appear for his 11/30 deposition. Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant to appear for deposition. Minute Order Page 1 of 3