Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00648, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 20CHCV00648 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 2/14/24
TRIAL DATE: 2/18/25
Case #20CHCV00648
“SECOND” MOTION
TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
Motion filed on 9/25/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia
Alvarado
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Althea and Michael Meadows
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Michael Meadows and
Third-Party A Cleaner Pool, Inc. to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena for
business records. Plaintiffs then request that the Court pierce
the corporate veil and impose various sanctions on Defendant Michael Meadows
for A Cleaner Pool, Inc.’s failure to comply with this Court’s 12/21/22
order.
Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the
Court:
(1) Impose monetary sanctions against
Defendant Michael Meadows in the amount of $3,120.00; (2) Order Defendant
Michael Meadows to pay the $1,785.00 in monetary sanctions that the Court
previously Ordered A Cleaner Pool, Inc. to pay following the Plaintiffs’ first
Motion to Compel compliance with the subpoena;
(3) Impose an evidentiary and/or issue
sanction against Defendant Michael Meadows that he operates A Cleaner Pool,
Inc. out of his home;
(4) Impose an evidentiary and/or issue
sanction against Defendant Michael Meadows that A Cleaner Pool, Inc.’s business
address is Mr. Meadows’ home address;
(5) Impose an evidentiary and/or issue
sanction against Defendant Michael Meadows that he stores pool chemicals used
for A Cleaner Pool, Inc.’s business at his home address.
Alternatively, if the Court does not pierce
the corporate veil or does not issue orders directly against Mr. Meadows,
Plaintiffs request that the Court:
(6) Impose monetary sanctions against A
Cleaner Pool, Inc. in the amount of $3,120.00.
(7) Re-Order A Cleaner Pool, Inc. to produce
the requested records free from objections; and
(8) Re-Order A Cleaner Pool, Inc. to pay the
$1,785.00 monetary sanctions the Court previously ordered it to pay.
RULING: The motion is denied. Defendants Althea
and Michael Meadows’ request for sanctions is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a dispute between neighbors,
Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia Alvarado (collectively, Plaintiffs) and
Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea Meadows (collectively, Defendants). One of the complaints against Defendants is
that they are running a business out of their home in violation of the
CC&Rs. (See Complaint
¶¶10-13, 30-40, 54-55, 66-72, 93-102, 106).
On 9/6/22, Plaintiffs filed a motion which sought an
order compelling non-party, A Cleaner Pool, Inc., to comply with Plaintiffs’
subpoena for business records.
Additionally, Plaintiffs requested sanctions against A Cleaner Pool,
Inc. and Defendant Michael Meadows in the amount of $1,785.00. Ultimately, on 12/21/22, the Court granted
the prior motion to compel compliance. (See 12/9/22 and 12/21/22 Minute
Orders). A Cleaner Pool, Inc. was ordered
to produce the documents requested in the deposition subpoena and to pay
sanctions in the amount of $1,785.00 within 30 days. (See 12/21/22 Minute Order). A Cleaner Pool, Inc. failed to comply with
the subpoena. Therefore, on 4/13/23,
Plaintiffs filed a second motion which sought an order compelling A Cleaner
Pool, Inc. to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena for business records and sought
the imposition of sanctions against Defendant Michael Meadows. (See 7/5/23 Minute Order). On 7/5/23, the hearing on that motion was
placed off calendar because Plaintiffs failed to serve the motion on Michael
Meadows as Agent for Service for a Cleaner Pool, Inc. and failed to provide
clear notice of the relief being sought.
(Id., pp.3-4).
On 7/6/23, Plaintiffs filed and served a third motion
seeking an order compelling Defendant Michael Meadows
and Third-Party A Cleaner Pool, Inc. to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena for
business records. Plaintiffs then
requested that the Court pierce the corporate veil and impose various sanctions
on Defendant Michael Meadows for A Cleaner Pool, Inc.’s failure to comply with
this Court’s 12/21/22 order. (See
Motion filed 7/6/23; 9/13/23 Minute Order).
Before the 9/13/23 hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying
the motion due to improper service of the motion, failure to provide clear
notice of the relief sought, and failure to provide evidence to support the
arguments made in the motion. At
Plaintiffs’ request, the Court amended its tentative ruling to deny the motion
without prejudice. (See 9/13/23
Minute Order).
On 9/25/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking
an order compelling Defendant Michael Meadows and Third-Party A Cleaner Pool,
Inc. to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena for business records. Although Plaintiffs have titled the motion as
their “Second Motion to Compel Compliance With a Subpoena for Business Records
from A Cleaner Pool, Inc.,” it is actually Plaintiffs’ fourth motion seeking
such relief. (See Motion,
p.1:11-13; Reply, p.6:21). As noted
above, the second and third motions were taken off calendar and denied, without
prejudice, respectively.
As in the motion filed on 7/6/23, in the instant motion,
filed on 9/25/23, Plaintiffs specifically request that the Court:
(1) Impose monetary sanctions against Defendant Michael
Meadows in the amount of $3,120.00; (2) Order Defendant Michael Meadows to pay
the $1,785.00 in monetary sanctions that the Court previously Ordered A Cleaner
Pool, Inc. to pay following the Plaintiffs’ first Motion to Compel compliance
with the subpoena;
(4) Impose an
evidentiary and/or issue sanction against Defendant Michael Meadows that A
Cleaner Pool, Inc.’s business address is Mr. Meadows’ home address;
(5) Impose an
evidentiary and/or issue sanction against Defendant Michael Meadows that he
stores pool chemicals used for A Cleaner Pool, Inc.’s business at his home
address.
Alternatively, if the Court does not pierce the corporate
veil or does not issue orders directly against Mr. Meadows, Plaintiffs request
that the Court:
(6) Impose monetary sanctions against A Cleaner Pool,
Inc. in the amount of $3,120.00.
(7) Re-Order A Cleaner Pool, Inc. to produce the
requested records free from objections; and
(8) Re-Order A Cleaner Pool, Inc. to pay the $1,785.00
monetary sanctions the Court previously ordered it to pay.
On 1/31/24, Defendants Althea and Michael Meadows (the
Meadows) filed an opposition to the motion and on 2/6/24, Plaintiffs filed a
reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
As noted above, this is the fourth motion the Court has
reviewed related to Plaintiffs’ subpoena for business records issued to Third-Party
A Cleaner Pool, Inc.
Yet again, Plaintiffs have not served the motion on
“Michael Meadows as agent for service for a Cleaner Pool, Inc.” The proofs of service for the motion
documents indicate that they were electronically served on defendants’
respective counsel. The Court
specifically noted in its 7/5/23 and 9/13/23 rulings that service should be
made on “Michael Meadows as agent for Service for A Cleaner Pool, Inc.” (See 7/5/23 Minute Order, p.3; 9/13/23
Minute Order, p.4).
Additionally, Plaintiff have, again, failed to provide
clear notice of the relief being sought despite the Court setting forth the
requirements in its 7/5/23 and 9/13/23 Minute Orders. As previously noted, CRC 3.1110(a) provides
that “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of
the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (See 7/5/23 Minute Order, p.3; 9/13/23
Minute Order. p.4). Once again, the
opening paragraph of the notice of motion indicates that Plaintiffs are merely
seeking “an order compelling Defendant Michael Meadows and Third-Party A
Cleaner Pool, Inc. to comply with the Alvarados’ subpoena for business records”
and goes on to explain that “[w]hile the subpoena was directed to Mr. Meadows’
corporation, A Cleaner Pool, Inc., Mr. Meadows does not respect the corporate
form. So the Alvarados request that the Court direct its Orders to Mr. Meadows,
the individual and defendant, instead of A Cleaner Pool, Inc. Alternatively
though, if the Court does not wish to pierce the corporate veil and issue
Orders directly against Mr. Meadows, then they request relief against A Cleaner
Pool, Inc.” (See Motion,
p.2:1-7). As with the prior motion, it
is not until the second and third paragraphs of the notice that Plaintiffs
indicate that they are actually seeking sanctions against Defendant Michael
Meadows for A Cleaner Pool, Inc.’s failure to comply with the 12/21/22 order,
or in the alternative, that the Court reissue the orders against A Cleaner
Pool, Inc. made on 12/21/22 and impose additional monetary sanctions. (See Notice of Motion, p.2:8-22).
The relief sought in this motion, as with the prior
motion, is further confused by the motion’s title which indicates that it is
Plaintiffs’ “Second Motion to Compel Compliance With a Subpoena for Business
Records From A Cleaner Pool, Inc.” and secondarily requests monetary,
evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions against A Cleaner Pool, Inc. and
Defendant Michael Meadows. (See
Motion, p.1:11-17). The reply also
indicates that sanctions are the primary relief sought by way of the instant
motion. (See Reply, p.5:20-23). Also, as noted above, this is actually
Plaintiffs’ fourth motion regarding the business records subpoena issued to A
Cleaner Pool, Inc.
Despite the Court specifically pointing out these same
defects in the prior motion, Plaintiffs repeated them in the instant
motion. (See 9/13/23 Minute
Order, p.4, p.5).
Similarly, in relation to their prior motion, Plaintiffs
requested that the Court take judicial notice of a Notice of Entry of Judgment
in a small claims action filed by Michael Meadows dba A Cleaner Pool. In ruling on the prior motion, the Court
noted that the notice provided no information regarding the facts leading up to
the small claims judgment. (See
9/13/23 Minute Order, p.5). Despite the
prior ruling, Plaintiffs have again requested judicial notice of the same
document. (See Request for
Judicial Notice).
The opposition to the motion argues that serving the
subpoena for business records on A Cleaner Pool, Inc. was improper because
Plaintiffs knew the corporation has been suspended for fifteen years. (See Opposition, p.5:3-23). However, in response to discovery served on
Mr. Meadows, individually, he claimed not to have the responsive
documents. (See Chimoures Decl.,
Ex.1 ¶¶3.3-3.4). Additionally, the
gravamen of the opposition to the first motion to compel compliance was that it
must be denied because it was not served on Michael Meadows as agent for
service for A Cleaner Pool, Inc. (See
Opposition filed 11/28/22; 12/21/22 Minute Order, p.5). If the Meadows wanted to attack the propriety
of the underlying subpoena, they should have done so in response to the first
motion. Similarly, in opposition to the
instant motion, the Meadows’, in part, improperly attempt to reargue the merits
of the first motion granted by the Court on 12/21/22. (See Opposition, p.7:25-p.9:27).
The motion also does not mention that at his deposition
as the person most qualified for A Cleaner Pools, Inc, Mr. Meadows produced
documents and testified in response to identical document requests as set forth
in the subject subpoena. (See
Tatikian Decl., Ex.A, B; Chimoures Decl., Ex.1.9, Ex.7, p.8:17-21). Plaintiffs’ attorney stated at the deposition
that he was “asking questions off the subpoena.” (Tatikian Decl., Ex.A, p.16:15-20). Plaintiffs fail to explain why additional
responses and/or production are necessary, especially since they first sought
the production of such documents from Mr. Meadows, individually. (See Reply, p.5:11-14). As such, Plaintiffs have failed to establish
that another order compelling compliance is warranted.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
have also failed to establish that any of the requested sanctions against Mr.
Meadows or A Cleaner Pool, Inc. are warranted.
Based on the foregoing, the Court also finds that the
Meadows are not entitled to sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.
The Meadows’ request for sanctions is also denied.