Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00722, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20GDCV00722 Hearing Date: February 22, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: February
22, 2023 TRIAL DATE: April 11, 2023
CASE: LEAFIRE INC, a
Delaware corporation, and LLULLLU LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v.
CADM INC.., a California corporation; JIANQIANG GU, an individual; HFE LLC, a
California limited liability company; WEE HIN, an individual, ROBERT CHEN, an
individual; CANNA HEALTHCARE, INC., a California corporation; LW VENTURES INC.,
a California corporation; COUNG THICH, an individual; 360 ESPINOSA ROAD II,
LLC, a California limited liability corporation; CANNABIS STRATEGIC VENTURES, a
Nevada Corporation, BENSHENG LI, a.k.a. BENSON LI, an individual; FONG SIMON
YU, an individual; CAXYH LLC, a California limited liability company; CAYPFD
LLC, a California limited liability company; CAMYG LLC, a California limited
liability company; CAMG LLC, a California
limited liability company; CAJYQNG, LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 20GDCV00722
MOTION
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
MOVING PARTY: Defendant CAYFD (“CAYFD”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs
Leafire Inc. and Llulllu LLC (“Plaintiffs”)
SERVICE: Filed December 27, 2022
OPPOSITION: Filed February 7, 2023
REPLY: No reply filed.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
CAYFD moves to quash the
deposition subpoena Plaintiffs served on Tsasu LLC.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of
Plaintiffs Leafire Inc. (“Leafire”) and Llulllu LLC’s (“Llulllu”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) claim that the defendants, in particular Jianquiang Gu (“Gu”),
engaged in a fraudulent scheme regarding the management of marijuana facilities
in exchange for a $12 million investment.
On July 16, 2021,
Plaintiffs filed this fourth amended complaint (“FAC”) against CADM, Gu, HFE,
Wee Hin, Robert Chen, Canna Healthcare, Inc. (“Canna”), LW Ventures Inc.
(“LW”), Cough Thich, 360 Espinosa Road II (“360 Espinosa”), Cannabis Strategic
Ventures (“Cannabis Strategic”), Bensheng Li, Fong Simon Yu, CAXYH LLC, CAYFD
LLC, CAMYG LLC, CAMG LLC, CAJYQNG LLC, and Does 1 through 20, alleging
seventeen causes of action for: (1) fraud, (2) investment fraud, (3) breach of
contract – first loan agreement, (4)
breach of contract – second loan agreement, (5) breach of contract August 24,
2020 MOU, (6) conversion, (7) damage to personal property, (8) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, (9) civil extortion, (10) restitution from
transferers based on unjust enrichment, (11) unfair competition, (12) avoidance
of fraudulent transfer, (13) avoidance of fraudulent transfer, (14) avoidance
of fraudulent transfer, (15) avoidance of fraudulent transfer, (16) avoidance
of fraudulent transfer, and (17) avoidance of fraudulent transfer.
TENTATIVE RULING
CAYFD’s
motion to quash the deposition subpoena is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of
Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides: “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 reasonably made by any person described in
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, including protective orders. In addition, the court
may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from
unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the
right of privacy of the person.”
DISCUSSION
CAYFD moves to quash a subpoena Plaintiffs
served on Tsasu LLC for the Deed of Trust, communications, and records related
to real property located at 42205 Calle Bandido, Murrieta, California. CAYFD argues
that the subpoena should be quashed because it is not likely to lead to
admissible evidence and because it invades the privacy rights of Gu.
As a
preliminary matter, CAYFD’s motion is procedurally deficient. California Rules
of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(5), provides that a separate statement
is required for a motion to quash the production of documents or tangible
things at a deposition. CAYFD has failed to provide a separate statement here.
Further, CAYFD has submitted no declarations or other evidence to substantiate its
claims.
Additionally,
CAYFD’s arguments on the merits of its motion fail as well. Plaintiffs allege
that Gu fraudulently transferred property to CAYFD on or about June 30, 2020.
(FAC ¶¶ 164-170.) Plaintiffs argue
that the property Gu is alleged to have transferred to CAYFD is the same
property that is subject to the Deed of Trust. (Opposition at p. 3:13-18.)
Thus, the documents are related to allegations in the FAC and are likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
CAYFD’s privacy arguments also fail. CAYFD argues that
the sought discovery would interfere with Gu’s business plans and violate his
personal privacy.
The California Constitution provides Californians with a right to
privacy. (Cal. Const., art. 1, section 1.) The California Supreme Court has held
that “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally
protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in
the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (“Williams”), citing Hill
v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) Other than
broadly asserting the sought discovery invades his privacy, Jones has not
properly set forth a protective privacy interest.
Other
than broadly claiming Gu’s privacy rights would be infringed by the subpoena, CAYFD
has not properly asserted a privacy right.
CONCLUSION
CAYFD’s
motion to quash the deposition subpoena is DENIED.
Moving Party
to give notice.
Dated: February 22,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org