Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV01004, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV01004    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     January 18, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         MIDWICK COLLECTION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation, v. ASHLEY IU, an individual; WALTER IU, an individual, and DOES 1through 10, inclusive.

CROSS:                      ASHLEY IU, an individual; WALTER IU, an individual, v. MIDWICK COLLECTION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation; JUNG HOON HAN, an individual; DANIEL BRACKINS, an individual.

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV01004

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

MOVING PARTY:               Cross-Defendants Midwick Collection Homeowners’ Association, Jung Hoon Han, and Daniel Brackins (“Cross-Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Cross-Complainants Ashley Iu and Walter Iu (“Cross-Complainants”)

SERVICE:                              Filed January 3, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 4, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Cross-Defendants move to quash the subpoena for the attendance of Naofumi Kudo (“Kudo”) and Joy (Jiayi) Yang (“Yang”) and production of documents.  

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Midwick Collection Homeowners Association’s (“HOA” or “Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Ashley Iu (“Ashley”) and Walter Iu (“Walter”) (“Defendants” or “Cross-Complainants”) made improper modifications to Defendants’ property located at 2238 Zanuck Place, Alhambra, California 91803 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Property is subject to recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&R”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were aware of the need to submit proper applications and receive approval for any modifications but engaged in the modifications without approval. 

            Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 3, 2021, alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of covenant and injunctive relief and (2) declaratory relief.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Cross-Defendants’ motion to quash the subpoenas for Kudo and Yang is GRANTED.

            Cross-Defendants’ request for sanction 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

            Cross-Defendants move to quash the subpoenas for the attendance of Kudo and Yang at the January 23, 2024, trial. As a preliminary note, the subpoenas seek the attendance of Kudo and Yang on January 23, 2023.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides, in part, that “the service of a subpoena is made by delivering a copy, or a ticket containing its substance, to the witness personally, giving or offering to the witness at the same time, if demanded by him or her, the fees to which he or she is entitled for travel to and from the place designated, and one day's attendance there.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.220, subdivision (b), provides, in part, that “[a]ny person may serve the subpoena by personal delivery of a copy. . . .”

            The subpoenas attached to Cross-Defendants motion do not have any proof of service establishing compliance with the serve requirements of the statute. In opposition, Cross-Complainant provides that the parties were served electronically. However, that service does not comply with the applicable statutes.

            “The personal service requirement for subpoenas found in section 1987, subdivision (a) perpetuates a long-standing rule of state procedure, one that predates even the codification of state law. [Citation.] A strict personal service requirement for civil trial subpoenas has been justified on the ground that disobedience of a ‘duly served’ subpoena represents a form of contempt (§ 1209, subd. (a)(10)), and the potentially severe consequences associated with a contempt finding make it especially important to ensure that a prospective witness knows that he or she has been subpoenaed to testify [citation]. Furthermore, because personal delivery is the form of service most likely to provide notice of a demand to appear at trial, requiring personal service of a trial subpoena minimizes the likelihood that a trial will be disrupted by a subpoenaed person's failure to appear.” (Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 844, 855.)

            Cross-Complainants fail to provide that they complied with the statutory requirements when they attempted to serve Kudo and Yang with the subpoenas. Thus, the service of the subpoenas was improper, and the subpoenas ordered quashed.

CONCLUSION

            Cross-Defendants’ motion to quash the subpoenas for Kudo and Yang is GRANTED.

            Cross-Defendants’ request for sanction is denied.

Dated:   January 18, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court