Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: January 15, 2025

Case Name: Labor Commissioner of the State of California v. Mission City Plastering, Inc.

Case No.: 24STCP03748

Matter: Motion For OSC re: Why Government Investigative Subpoenas Should Not Be Enforced

Moving Party: Petitioner Labor Commissioner of the State of California

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for OSC re: Why Government Investigative Subpoenas Should Not Be Enforced is granted.

On November 18, 2024, Petitioner Labor Commissioner of the State of California (Petitioner Labor Commissioner) filed a Petition to compel Respondents Mission City Plastering Inc. and David Arriaga to comply with duly issued state investigative subpoenas.

On November 27, 2024, Petitioner filed a Motion for OSC re: Why Government Investigative Subpoenas Should Not Be Enforced pursuant to Government Code section 11188. No opposition was filed.

The motion is granted.

Analysis

Petitioner Labor Commissioner requests an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) directing Respondents to appear and respond to the Labor Commissioner’s Petition filed in this action, as provided for by Government Code section 11188.

Government Code section 11180 authorizes department heads to investigate matters within the department's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 11180 [“The head of each department may make investigations and prosecute actions concerning: [¶] (a) All matters relating to the business activities and subjects under the jurisdiction of the department. [¶] (b) Violations of any law or rule or order of the department. [¶] (c) Such other matters as may be provided by law.”].)

Government Code section 11181 authorizes the department head to issue subpoenas for the production of documents. (Gov. Code, § 11181, subd. (e) [“In connection with any investigation or action authorized by this article, the department head may ...: [¶] ... [¶] Issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers, books, accounts, documents, any writing as defined by Section 250 of the Evidence Code, tangible things, and testimony pertinent or material to any inquiry, investigation, hearing, proceeding, or action conducted in any part of the state.”].) Such subpoenas are valid as long as they meet the three-part test articulated by our Supreme Court in Brovelli v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 524. Specifically, the subpoenas are valid if: (1) they inquire into matters the agency is authorized to investigate; (2) they are “not too indefinite”; and (3) the information sought is “reasonably relevant” to the investigation. (Id. at p. 529; see Craib v. Bulmash (1989) 49 Cal.3d 475, 482 [administrative subpoena may be enforced if it is issued “for ‘a lawfully authorized purpose, within the power of [the legislative body] to command,’ ” and seeks documents that “are ‘relevant’ to the inquiry.”].)

If the responding party fails to comply with the subpoena, the department head may file a petition in the superior court for an order compelling compliance. (Gov. Code, §§ 11186, 11187.) “Trial courts are authorized to enforce investigative subpoenas that are ‘regularly issued.’ (Gov. Code, § 11188.) ‘The term “regularly issued” means in accordance with the provisions of sections 11180, 11181, 11182, 11184 and 11185 of the Government Code providing for the matters which may be investigated, the acts authorized in connection with investigations, and the service of process.’ ” (Stiger v. Flippin (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 646, 657.)

On April 15, 2024, Petitioner Labor Commissioner issued investigative subpoenas to Mission City Plastering Inc. and David Arriaga. (Pet. ¶ 29.) These subpoenas were served on them on April 18, 2024. (Id. ¶ 31.) However, they failed to respond to the subpoenas or ask for an extension. (Pet. ¶ 33.) The Labor Commissioner’s informal attempts to obtain compliance with the subpoenas were unavailing. (Pet. ¶¶ 33-34.)

The motion is granted pursuant to Government Code section 11188.

Conclusion

The motion is granted.