Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCP00257, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00257    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Order

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     January 29, 2025                               TRIAL DATE:  N/A

CASE:                         Grandma Investments, Ltd., et al. v. RT Features U.S., LLC

CASE NO.:                 24STCP00257

MOTION TO QUASH APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCNE AND EXAMINATION

MOVING PARTY:               Non-Party Joseph Geus

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Grandma Investments, Ltd., Aloha Finance, Ltd., Bolt Ventures Ltd., FCA Capital, Ltd., and Rocio Trading Corporation

I.          BACKGROUND

            On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Grandma Investments, Ltd., Aloha Finance, Ltd., Bolt Ventures Ltd., FCA Capital, Ltd., and Rocio Trading Corporation (“Creditors”) filed this action to confirm arbitration award. On June 24, 2024, the Court confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Creditors and against RT Features U.S., LLC (“RT Features”).   

After obtaining a judgment against RT Features, Creditors filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination in order to examine Non-Party Joseph Geus (“Geus”) on behalf of RT Features.

            On November 27, 2024, Geus, specially appearing, filed this Motion to Quash Application and Order for Appearance and Examination.

            On January 15, 2025, Creditors filed an opposition.

            On January 22, 2025, Geus filed a reply.

            The motion is set to be heard on January 29, 2025.  The court now issues its tentative order.

II.        DISCUSSION & LEGAL STANDARD

            Geus argues that the requested production is overbroad and burdensome to the point that he is incapable of reasonable compliance, and that he cannot comply because he is merely the agent for service of process for RT Features.

            CCP § 708.110(a) provides that “The judgment creditor may apply to the proper court for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed by the court, at a time and placed specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.”

            When the judgment debtor is an entity rather than an individual, a natural person is required to be named on an order to appear for examination on behalf of a business entity. (Los Angeles County S. Ct. Rule 3.221.)

            “A judgment debtor examination is intended to allow the judgment creditor a wide scope of inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the debtor.” (Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Assn. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 581 (quoting Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1002).) The judgment creditor is accorded “the widest scope for inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the debtor …” (Young v. Keele (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1090, 1093; Marriage of Sachs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1159.)

            Geus argues the requested production is overbroad because it requests 15 years’ worth of documents. However, the subpoena served upon Geus clearly shows that Creditors are only seeking documents from 2020 onward. (Wallin Decl., Ex. 4.) Therefore, the requested production is not overbroad. Furthermore, the requested documents are relevant because they  request RT Features’ bank records, which would show its revenue, expenses, and overall financial condition. Additionally, the contracts that Creditors have requested would show potential sources of income for RT Features as well as its potential liabilities.

            Next, Geus argues that he does not have access to the documents that Creditors seek because he is merely the agent for service of process for RT Features. Creditors claim that Geus is RT Features’ accountant and possibly its Chief Financial Officer (Wallin Decl., ¶ 7), but Creditors have not provided evidence for this claim beyond their own assertion. Geus maintains that he not an employee of RT Features and is merely RT Features’ agent for service of process.

            Even so, the court shall allow the examination to go forward and allow Creditors to inquire and establish the facts, under oath.  To the extent that Geus has any of the relevant requested documents, he must produce them at the time of examination. If he does not have any of the documents in his possession, then perhaps he will be able to tell Creditors who might have the documents.  

            Based on the foregoing, Geus’ motion to quash application and order for appearance and examination is DENIED.

III.      CONCLUSION

Geus’ motion to quash application and order for appearance and examination is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   January 29, 2025