Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00001006-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00001006-CU-MC-CTL WITT VS AERO MARINE AMERICA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Aero Marine America, Inc.'s motion to quash the subpoena served on JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is GRANTED.

As Defendant points out, Plaintiff Witt sought similar, albeit somewhat broader, information from Chase last year. This court granted Defendant's motion to quash that subpoena, finding that it was premature and observing that Plaintiff sought 'the very information that forms the basis of his Request for his Accounting Cause of action (An action for an accounting is equitable in nature. It may be brought to compel the defendant to account to the plaintiff for money or property, (1) where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, or (2) where, even though no fiduciary relationship exists, the accounts are so complicated that an ordinary legal action demanding a fixed sum is impracticable.' (ROA #26.) It appears Plaintiff is seeking the same or similar information from Chase and for the same reason, namely, to gather the raw information necessary for an accounting.

Plaintiff argues his very similar deposition subpoena is no longer premature because Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) was denied. (See ROA #67.) In opposition to the MSJ, Witt denied he signed the release wherein he allegedly renounced all interest in Aero Marine in exchange for $20,000.00, and claimed the check to him in that amount from Aero Marine, close in time to the release, was actually repayment for a corporate loan. Plaintiff has provided no additional evidence since the MSJ was denied, but nevertheless argues the factual issue – whether the release is a forgery or not – puts him on a different footing with respect to his right to Aero Marine's financial information.

Plaintiff also notes that when the court quashed the subpoena the first time, it cited to Austin v. Turrentine (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 750, 76, for the proposition that '[i[f it may be reasonably determined from the pleadings, the affidavits and proofs submitted that a trust relationship is created and there has been a breach of that trust relationship, a right to an accounting exists.' However, Aero Marine is a closely held corporation and its owners claim that in a highly competitive industry, sharing financial information with a disgruntled former shareholder might reveal trade secrets and otherwise presents a substantial risk of harm. Although this claim is somewhat vague, the court is satisfied disclosure does present genuine risks.

While Plaintiff did present enough evidence to defeat Aero Marine's MSJ, that evidence consisted largely of his own averments. On the other hand, the Waiver is a ''written statement of the negotiating parties' acts establishing a legal relationship.' (See Skelly v. Richman (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 844, 858. [one party's description of an oral agreement satisfies both foundational and hearsay objections].) Credibility is thus central to this case. Consequently, the release of Aero Marine's financial information, especially Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2983785  5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WITT VS AERO MARINE AMERICA INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00001006-CU-MC-CTL the vast swath Plaintiff is demanding, is premature until a factfinder can make this critical determination.

Plaintiff also argues he is requesting information solely for the years he was allegedly a shareholder at Aero Marine. But as a shareholder during that time, Plaintiff seemingly should already have had access to such information. More importantly, in the release he ostensibly signed, he waived any 'interest' in any property, which presumably includes Aero Marine's banking records. The question of the waiver's validity is obviously central to whether any fiduciary duties are still owed to Plaintiff.

There could be a potential issue of delaying the trial if indeed Plaintiff prevails on this threshold issue, but the court will consider early bifurcation of this threshold issue, which should remedy any potential delay.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2983785  5