Motion-Secondary: MICHELE MARIE SCHNEIDER VS RUDY FIERRO, ET AL.

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/01/2021 12:11 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by L. Coreas,Deputy Clerk




          1      Wilfredo Trivino Perez (SBN 219345)
                 TRIVINO PEREZ & ASSOCIATES
          2      10940 Wilshire Blvd., 16th Fl.
                 Los Angeles, CA 90024
          3      Telephone: 310-443-4251
                 Facsimile:   310-443-4252
          4
                 Attorneys for Defendant, RUDY FIERRO
          5
          6
          7
                                             SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
          8
                                         COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES– SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE
          9
        10
                  MICHELLE MARIE SCHNEIDER,                                                  Case No. 19STCV24550
        11
        12                                           Plaintiff,
                                                                                             DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO
                              v.                                                             PLAINTIFF MICHELLE MARIE
        13                                                                                   SCHNEIDER’S MOTION COMPELLING
                                                                                             DEFENDANT RUDY FIERRO TO APPEAR
        14        RUDY FIERRO, ET AL,                                                        FOR DEPOSITION; AND FOR MONETARY
                                                                                             SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF
        15                                                                                   WILFREDO TRIVINO-PEREZ (IN SUPPORT
                                                           Defendants.                       THEREOF)
        16
        17
        18                                                                    OPPOSITION
        19
        20                              I.         INTRODUCTION
        21                  The Court should deny Michelle Marie Schneider’s motion to compel deposition and request for
        22       monetary sanctions for the following reasons:
        23                  Pursuant to rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules, mandatory withdrawal
        24       from further representation existed, which prevented Defendant Rudy Fierro’s counsel from further
        25       representation, which includes attendance and defense in depositions. Plaintiff counsel was notified of
        26       this on November 24, 2020. Yet, he failed to call off the deposition, and proceeded with it, in order to
        27       create grounds for the instant motion.
        28       ///



                                                                                                1
                  DEFENDANT RUDY FIERRO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DISCOVERY SANCTIONS