Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV34436, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV34436    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff Wilshire House Association filed this quiet title action against Defendants Mitra Atarodi, Ava Moradieh Kashani, and all persons claiming interest in the subject property.

            The dispute concerns a condominium unit (the Unit) in the building known as Wilshire House, located in Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that it owns the Unit free and clear through a sale executed in August 2024, while Defendants claim they own it through a deed of trust (DOT) executed in 1993. The DOT was purportedly executed by nonparty Moussa Moradieh-Kashani (Kashani) to secure obligations that he owed to Defendants. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the DOT is invalid and unenforceable.  

            On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Kashani’s compliance with a document subpoena. No opposition has been filed.

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(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 seeks documents pertaining to agreements, debts, payments, and accounting between Kashani and the Defendants. There is good cause for the information because Defendants claim ownership of the Unit through a DOT executed by Kashani to secure obligations he purportedly owed to Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to discover information pertaining to the existence and extent of these obligations. Neither Defendants nor Kashani have filed an opposition to the motion explaining why production should not be compelled.

            Sanctions are warranted as no substantial justification has been presented for Kashani’s failure to comply with the subpoena. Plaintiff reasonably requests $900. (See Zucker Decl. ¶ 7.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena is GRANTED. Nonparty Moussa Moradieh-Kashani shall produce the documents requested in the subpoena within 20 days of this order. The Court sanctions Kashani in the amount of $900, to be paid within 30 days of this order.