Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01467, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01467, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01467 Hearing Date: June 5, 2025 Dept: C

YAAKOV LEVY, et al. v. HRAIR KERTENIAN, et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01467

HEARING: 06/05/2025 @ 9:30 a.m.

#14

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Hrair Kertenian and Magic Laundry Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum Served to Third Party ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company is GRANTED. ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company is ordered to produce all documents in response to the request for production and pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $861.65 within twenty (20) days of the Court’s order.

Background

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Yaakov Levy (“Levy”) and Laundry Los Angeles, Inc. (“LLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action against Magic Laundry Services, Inc. (“MLS”), Hrair Kertenian (“Kertenian), Armen Gassyan (“Gassyan”), and Does 1 through 100 (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On March 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file second amended complaint. On April 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint asserting eight causes of action for (1) trespass to land, (2) trespass to chattels, (3) conversion, (4) interference with prospective economic relations, (5) interference with contractual relations, (6) alter ego theory, (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (8) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Complaint alleges that on November 4, 2020, Plaintiff LLA was vandalized. Defendant Gassyan was arrested at the location and charged with commercial burglary and vandalism. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants MLS and Kertenian conspired with Gassyan to damage Plaintiffs’ commercial laundry facility, a competitor of the Defendant MLS.

On September 10, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum Served to Third Party ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Motion”). As of June 3, 2025, the Motion is unopposed.

On October 10, 2024, Defendants’ Demurrer was sustained in part.

Legal Standard

For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court¿(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010;¿Schnabel v. Superior Court¿(1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)¿ A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)

A service of a deposition subpoena shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).)¿ If the deponent is an organization, the subpoena may be personally delivered on “any officer, director, custodian of records, or to any agent or employee authorized by the organization to accept service of a subpoena.” (Id. at § 2020.220, subd. (b).)

A deposition subpoena that requires only the production of documents “shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (a).) A deposition subpoena for the production of business documents need not be accompanied by an affidavit of good cause and must be directed at the custodian of records or other person qualified to certify those documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (c).) The responding party must comply with a deposition subpoena on a date that is no earlier than 20 days after the issuance or 15 days after service of the subpoena, whichever is later. (Id.)

A deposition subpoena is enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.030.) After notice and opportunity to be heard, the Court may issue an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon terms and conditions as the Court may declare. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (d), Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.) A “written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail¿or electronic service¿at an address¿or electronic service address¿specified on the deposition record.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)

If a deponent disobeys a deposition subpoena, a court may find the deponent to be in contempt and award the aggrieved party $500 in damages in addition to all damages the aggrieved party may have sustained as a result of the deponent’s failure to appear. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1992, 2025.440, and 2020.240.) Furthermore, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct…If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), examples of the misuse of the discovery process include, “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Analysis

Defendants MLS and Kertenian move for a Court order compelling third-party ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company to produce all documents requested by the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued by Kertenian.

In January 2023, Defendants propounded discovery requests on Plaintiffs. (Powell Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) In response to the discovery requests, Plaintiffs indicated that they had an insurance policy for the commercial laundry facility at issue through ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“ACE”). (Id. at ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiffs failed to produce all communications with the insurance carrier related to the incident and damages suffered. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-9.) On April 17, 2024, Defendants issued a subpoena to ACE requesting the production of all documents related to Plaintiffs’ claim, “including all communications, any payments issued to Plaintiffs, estimates of property damages, claim analysis, estimates of lost business and lost income, and so forth” along with a Notice to Consumer. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11, Exs. A-B.) The subpoena was properly served on ACE. (Id. at ¶ 12, Ex. C.) Neither Plaintiffs nor ACE objected to the subpoena. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Defendants did not receive a response from ACE, thus, from late May 2024 to July 18, 2024, defense counsel attempted to contact ACE by telephone on numerous occasions regarding production of the documents requested. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) Counsel also sent a letter to ACE requesting compliance with the subpoena by August 14, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 14, Ex. D.) As of the date of the Motion, Defendants have not received any response. (Id. at ¶ 15.) No opposition has been filed to the Motion.

Defense counsel indicates that he spent two (2) hours preparing the Motion and anticipates spending another hour preparing the reply and attending the hearing, at an hourly rate of $400 per hour. (Powell Decl., ¶ 16.) He requests $1,200 in attorney’s fees and $61.65 for filing fees, for a total of $1,261.65. (Ibid.)

The Court finds that Defendants properly served a subpoena with a request for production of documents on ACE to obtain discoverable information. ACE did not respond to the request for production. The Court notes that the Motion was not personally served on ACE in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346. (Motion, pp. 25-26.) However, it was served by mail and electronic service.

The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.

Moreover, Defendants are entitled to sanctions. The Court finds it appropriate to grant sanctions in the amount of $861.65, as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the instant Motion and appear at the hearing, at an hourly rate of $400, and $61.65 in filings fees.

Website by Triangulus