Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22AHCV00887, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00887    Hearing Date: April 25, 2025    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Bake Code 1001 Inc. (Bake Code) and Sam Leung (Leung) (collectively Plaintiffs) bring this action against La Kaffa International Co. Ltd. (La Kaffa) and Henry Wang (Wang), as well as several other parties. Wang is a resident of Taiwan where he operates La Kaffa. Plaintiffs allege Wang and La Kaffa conspired with parties in the U.S. to sell Leung a Bake Code franchise which did not exist with the promise that Leung would receive an EB-5 Visa. Plaintiffs’ action seeks restitution for the investment made into the nonexistent franchise.

Among the other named Defendants in this case are Henry Yang (Yang) and Redlands Management Co., LLC (Redlands). Redlands is alleged to be a California company which sold the nonexistent Bake Code franchise to Leung at the direction of La Kaffa. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Yang is alleged to be the sole owner of Redlands. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Also among the named Defendants in this case is Dixon Wong (Wong). Wong is alleged to have provided fraudulent legal services to Plaintiffs in obtaining the EB-5 Visa and establishing the fictious La Kaffa Franchise. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

Before the Court is a motion by Yang and Dixon (Moving Defendants) pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.420. Moving Defendants seek an order of the Court quashing two deposition subpoenas served by Plaintiffs. The motion is unopposed, though the Court believes this was likely the result of insufficient notice. For this reason, and others stated below, the Court finds the motion should be denied without prejudice. 

ANALYSIS: 

To begin, the motion is unaccompanied by any proof of service. C.C.P. § 1005(b) requires that a moving party serve (1) notice of the motion, (2) the motion itself, and (3) any memorandum attached to the motion. The purpose of this requirement is to provide the opposing party adequate time to prepare an opposition. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 828.) That purpose is served if the party appears at the hearing, opposes the motion on the merits, and was not prejudiced in preparing an opposition by the untimely notice.” (Id.) Motions are deemed to be “made” when they are both filed and served. (C.C.P. § 1005.5) Failure to adhere to this procedure, however, is generally not grounds for depriving a party of a hearing of the motion to which they are otherwise untiled. (Id.) 

Here, the motion is unaccompanied by any proof of service for the motion. The motion itself attaches proof of a reservation for the hearing, but it contains no affidavit that the motion was served on the other parties in this case. Nor did Moving Defendants file a separate proof of service for the motion. As such, the Court is entirely uncertain whether the motion was properly served. Under usual circumstances, the Court would continue the motion and order the moving party to serve notice. In this instance however, a review of the moving papers reveals that merely requiring Moving Defendants to file a proof of service will not result in effective adjudication of the motion.

Upon review, it appears that Moving Defendants neglected to attach the deposition notice which they seek quashed. C.C.P. § 2025.420 requires that a party seeking a protective order from a deposition subpoena demonstrate good cause for the order to issue. Moving Defendants have also attached no affidavits as to service of these notices or any other facts from which good cause could be determined. The Court cannot determine that good cause exists to issue a protective order from a deposition subpoena it has not seen. Effective resolution of this dispute mandates that Moving Defendants provide evidence of the deposition subpoenas.

Given the foregoing, the Court is inclined to deny Moving Defendant’s motion without prejudice. This would permit Moving Defendants the opportunity to refile and serve their motion should they see fit to do so.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Henry Yang and Dixon Wong’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena came on regularly for hearing on April 25, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DEFENDANT DIXON WONG IS ORDERED TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.