Motion to Compel
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling Alfredo Zamarripa, et al. v. Sandbar, et al. Case No. 23CV05676 Hearing Date: June 22, 2026 HEARING: Old Town Hospitality, LLC's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Adam Zaragoza Mujica ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiffs Alfredo Zamarripa and Michael Contreras: Robert J. Stoll, Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov For Defendant Old Town Hospitality, LLC (aka Sandbar): Andrew A. Higgs, N. Kaja Bojic, Lynberg & Watkins For Defendant Adam Zaragoza Mujica: No appearance
TENTATIVE RULING: The court grants the motion of defendant Old Town Hospitality, LLC, aka Sandbar (collectively, Old Town), to compel the deposition of Defendant Adam Zaragoza Mujica (Mujica) pursuant to the subpoena and notice of deposition served on Mujica on September 16, 2025. Old Town shall submit a proposed order with a specific time and place for this deposition to take place. Old Town shall personally serve Mujica with a copy of this minute order, a copy of an order setting the time and place for this deposition to take place, and a notice of deposition.
Background: On December 12, 2023, plaintiffs Alfredo Zamarripa and Michael Contreras (collectively, Plaintiffs) initiated this action by filing a complaint against defendants Old Town aka Sandbar, Baja Sharkeez Restaurant Group (BSRG), Sharkeez Restaurant, LLC (Sharkeez), and Mujica, asserting one cause of action for negligence. (Compl.)
As alleged in the complaint, on October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs were both shot by Mujica at Sandbar located at or near 514 State Street, Santa Barbara. (Compl., p. 5.) Plaintiffs allege that prior to the shooting incident, Mujica was armed, violent, and misbehaving, but Sandbar and its owners, agents, or employees failed to take reasonable actions to remove or eject Mujica from Sandbar or warn Plaintiffs of the danger Mujica presented. Plaintiffs suffered serious injuries and other damages. (Ibid.)
On March 11, 2024, defendant Old Town, aka Sandbar, filed an answer, generally denying the allegations in the complaint and setting forth 24 affirmative defenses. That same day, Old Town also filed a cross-complaint against Mujica for indemnity under various theories and declaratory relief.
On March 21, 2024, Old Town filed a proof of service indicating Mujica was personally served with the cross-complaint and court-issued summons. On April 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service indicating that Mujica was personally served with the summons and complaint. Mujica has not appeared in this action.
On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs dismissed this action without prejudice as to BSRG and Sharkeez, leaving Old Town, aka Sandbar, and Mujica as the remaining defendants.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On September 16, 2025, Old Town personally served Mujica with a deposition subpoena requiring Mujica to appear for deposition on October 3, 2025. (Higgs Decl., P.P. 6-7 & Exs. B-C.) Mujica appeared two hours late for his scheduled deposition on October 3, but Old Town had already taken a non-appearance. (Higgs Decl., P.P. 8-9 & Exs. C-D.)
Old Town sought to reschedule Mujica's deposition, but was unable to serve him with a new deposition subpoena. (Higgs Decl., P.P. 10-14.) Old Town submits evidence that Mujica is evading service, including that Old Town made at least nine attempts to serve Mujica with deposition subpoenas and was required to hire a private investigator. (Higgs Decl., P.P. 4-14.)
On March 4, 2026, Old Town filed this motion to compel Mujica to attend his deposition pursuant to the deposition subpoena. There is no proof of service indicating this motion was served on Mujica. No party filed an opposition.
Analysis: "Any party may obtain discovery ... by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.010, subd. (a).) "The defendant may serve a deposition notice without leave of court at any time after that defendant has been served or has appeared in the action, whichever occurs first." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.210, subd. (a).) "The service of a deposition notice ... is effective to require any deponent who is a party ... to attend and to testify ...." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.280, subd. (a).) "If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action ... 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 ...." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.450, subd. (a).)
Old Town's motion seeks compel Mujica to attend a deposition in this action pursuant to the previously issued and served subpoena. Old Town has established that the testimony of Mujica regarding the events of October 6, 2023, is relevant to claims and defenses in this action. Mujica is a party to this action.
The court notes that Old Town's motion does not seek relief that was not already compelled by the deposition subpoena personally served on Mujica on September 16, 2025. Under these circumstances, the court will grant Old Town's motion to compel the attendance of Mujica at a deposition pursuant to the previously served deposition subpoena.
The court will require that Old Town submit a proposed order with a specific time and place for this deposition to take place. The court will require that Old Town personally serve Mujica with a copy of this minute order, a copy of an order setting a specific time and place for this deposition to occur, and a notice of deposition. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1011; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.280, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2025.210, subd. (a).) The deposition should be set far enough in advance so that personal service may be effectuated.
Tentative Ruling: Matter of Trust of Phillip Savenick Tentative Ruling: Matter of Trust of Phillip Savenick