Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV41059, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41059    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 26, 2020, Plaintiff Angela Hsu initiated this action against various Defendants for (1) quiet title, (2) cancellation of instruments, and (3) usury. Plaintiff alleges that she and her husband (Decedent) were joint tenants of real property located in Oceanside, California as of September 1977 (the Property). In May 2015 and October 2017, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Decedent borrowed $100,000 and $50,000 from Defendants, secured by the Property. Decedent passed away in August 2020, and Plaintiff alleges that as a result, she wholly owns the Property without encumbrance. Defendants have refused to remove the subject liens from the Property, prompting this lawsuit.

            On March 4, 2021, Defendants Tsasu LLC and Hestter Investment, LLC (collectively, the creditors) filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for breach of contract and declaratory relief, alleging that Plaintiff is responsible for the loans made to Decedent.

            On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which added causes of action for unjust enrichment and equitable indemnification against Pichi Lin (Lin). Plaintiff alleges that Decedent and Lin made the loans together without Plaintiff’s knowledge and that Lin benefitted from the money. Plaintiff alleges that if she is held liable to the creditors, then in fairness Lin should be liable to her, since Lin was the true beneficiary of the loans.

On February 17, 2023, the Court sustained Lin’s demurrer to the FAC because the facts did not support how Lin was unjustly enriched or at fault for Plaintiff’s liability, since it is undisputed that Decedent alone made the loans. However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend to allege a cause of action based on Family Code section 1100(b), which allows a spouse to void an improper transfer of community property. The Court also granted leave to assert causes of action based on improper rent collection and forgery.

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint incorporating the Family Code allegations and adding causes of action for conversion and fraud by forgery. On May 8, 2023, the Court sustained Lin’s demurrer without leave to amend as to the unjust enrichment and equitable indemnity claims.

On December 22, 2023, Defendant Lin filed the instant motion to quash a subpoena issued to JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. Plaintiff filed her opposition on January 8, 2024. Defendant filed her reply on January 12, 2024.     

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things …, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] . . . 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), (b).) Good cause must be shown to compel a nonparty to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)   

DISCUSSION

            The subpoena at issue seeks “Any and all bank records, including but not limited to bank statements, wire transfer records, deposit slips, receipts, for Account#8720579660, or any account of Pichi Lin.” (Parker Decl., Ex. A.)

            Based on the community property allegations, evidence related to how the loan funds were received, distributed, or used is relevant. The fact that Defendant denies receiving the funds, or has produced evidence of how some of the funds were used, does not preclude Plaintiff from conducting this discovery. The records are relevant also because Plaintiff alleges that rental proceeds from the Property were obtained through forgery and deposited into the joint account of Decedent and Lin. Defendant’s argument that the claims are meritless does not preclude Plaintiff from conducting discovery.

However, Plaintiff’s explanation in support of the subpoena only establishes the relevance of the joint account (Account#8720579660), not “any and all bank records” or “any account of Pichi Lin.” The subpoena is therefore overbroad on its face. The subpoena is limited to bank records pertaining to Account#8720579660. For these records, the information is directly relevant, and Plaintiff’s need for the information outweighs Defendant’s interest in privacy. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Pichi Lin’s motion to quash is GRANTED in part. The subpoena to JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA is limited to records pertaining to Account#8720579660, without prejudice to Plaintiff issuing further subpoenas upon discovering other relevant bank accounts.

Production shall be subject to a protective order.

Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.