Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: BC713837, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC713837    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff, Samantha Fagen, initiated this action against Defendants Alfredo Boulton (“Alfredo”), Andres Boulton (“Andres”), and Gianmar Molero De Boulton (“Gianmar”) for injuries arising from a multi-vehicle accident. Alfredo was the driver of the vehicle who allegedly caused the accident. Andres and Gianmar are Alfredo’s parents and the owners of the vehicle driven by Alfredo. Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 21, 2018.

On February 2, 2022, Alfredo filed for bankruptcy. The proceedings in this matter were stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy until November 15, 2022.

On September 25, 2023, Alfredo filed the instant motion to quash notice to appear. No opposition has been filed.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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 orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

III.      DISCUSSION

         By way of background, Plaintiff issued a Demand to Appear and Produce Documents at Trial on Alfredo pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1987, et seq on September 20, 2023. (See generally Separate Statement.) Here, Alfredo argues that this subpoena should be quashed because there is no dispute as to Plaintiff’s entitlement to insurance policy limits and Alfredo’s bankruptcy has been discharged by order of the Bankruptcy Court on September 20, 2023. (Motion at pp. 4-5, relying on Weakly–Hoyt v. Foster (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 928.) As a result of the dischargement, Alfredo contends that there is an injunction that prevents the continuation of an action against him. (Motion at pg. 3, relying on Forsyth v. Jones (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 776, 782.) However, this argument is unpersuasive. As pointed out in Forsyth, “Section 524(a) [of the Bankruptcy Code] does not enjoin an action against a discharged debtor when pursued solely to recover from the debtor's insurer.” (Forsyth, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pg. 782.) While Defendant claims to have offered the policy limits of his insurance during pre-litigation negotiations (Motion at pg. 4), he has not submitted any admissible evidence to corroborate this representation.  Furthermore, no party has moved for summary adjudication on the issue of Alfredo’s liability. Because the subject subpoena seeks documents regarding Alfredo’s insurance policy that was in effect at the time of the incident and other documents that could be relevant to determining Alfredo’s liability, the Court does not find the subject subpoena to be oppressive or unreasonable.

          Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Defendant Alfredo Boulton’s motion to quash notice to appear is DENIED.     

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 27th day of November 2023