Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: BC614955, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC614955 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Bralock vs. American
University of Health Sciences, Inc., et. al., Case No. BC614955
Tentative Ruling
re: Judgment Debtor’s Motions to Quash
Judgment Debtor Exam and Subpoena
Defendant/Judgment Debtor American University
of Health Sciences, Inc. (AUHS) moves to quash the subpoena duces tecum and
Judgment Debtor Examination served on it by Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Anita
Bralock and Brandon Fryman (Judgment Creditors). The motions are granted.
“If a subpoena requires the
attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically
stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue
therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court . . . may make an order
quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it
upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective
orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
Service on a party post-judgment
“shall be made in the same manner as a summons is served under Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 684.110, subd.
(a).) A summons may be served on a corporation “to the person designated as
agent for service of process,” or “[t]o the president, chief executive officer,
or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant
secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial
officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to
receive service of process.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10.)
On October 10, 2023, Judgment
Creditors served documents including an Application and Order for Appearance
and Examination (the JDE) and Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and
Production of Documents (the Subpoena) on AUHS via personal service on “Carpet
Lacen,” who is described in the Proof of Service as “Administrator, Authorized
to Accept.” (Hoang Decl., Ex. 6 [48].) It appears that the documents were in
fact served on Carlet Lacno, a clerk for AUHS’s Chief Financial Officer, Sandy
Sarge. (Sarge Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Lacno Decl. ¶ 5.)
Lacno has no managerial or fiduciary responsibilities, and is not
authorized to receive service for AUHS. (Sarge Decl. ¶ 15; Lacno Decl. ¶¶ 2,
7.) Lacno states that the process server appeared at her office on October 10,
2023, handed her papers including the JDE and Subpoena, then asked her to sign
a receipt for the papers. (Lacno Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Lacno never informed the server
that she was an “administrator” or that she was authorized to accept service on
behalf of AUHS. (Lacno Decl. ¶ 5.)
Judgment Creditors have presented
no evidence disputing Lacno’s and Sarge’s statements and fail to show that
“Carpet Lacen” is a proper person to receive service on behalf of AUHS.
Accordingly, the motions to quash are granted.