Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCP02406, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02406    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Non-party Behrooz Khavari (“Khavari”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This is an action to enforce a judgment that was entered in a Nevada state court.  On October 17, 2023, Khavari filed a motion to quash a deposition subpoena that Plaintiffs served on him (the “Motion”). 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents and their legal effect, but not to the truth of the matters stated therein.  (See Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 389, 400.)

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1987.1, subdivision (a), 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, upon motion made by any person described in CCP section 1987.1, subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.  (CCP § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  

CCP section 708.150, subdivision (a) provides: if a corporation, partnership, association, trust, limited liability company, or other organization is served with an order to appear for an examination, it shall designate to appear and be examined one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who are familiar with its property and debts.  (CCP § 708.150, subd. (a)(1).)

            The Motion does not cite to any legal authority or admissible evidence to support Khavari’s arguments.  A party’s contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.  (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)  Furthermore, the Khavari Declaration cited in the Motion was not filed with the moving papers, and the Court declines to consider new evidence offered in the reply brief.  (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.)  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

       Dated this 6th day of December 2023