Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV02611, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02611    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant and cross-complainant Howard Management Group

RESPONDING PARTY:       Cross-defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services

Motion to Compel Third Party Amtech Elevator Services to Comply with Deposition Subpoena

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant and cross-complainant Howard Management Group (“Howard Management”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling cross-defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services (“Amtech”)[1] to produce all responsive documents in compliance with the deposition subpoena for business records served on Amtech; (2) awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of Howard Management and against Amtech in the amount of $2,166.35; and (3) awarding $500 as an award of forfeiture pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1992 in favor of Howard Management and against Amtech.

Howard Management requests that the court compel Amtech to produce the documents requested in the subject Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the “Subpoena”) dated April 26, 2022, which Howard Management contends was served on Amtech on April 28, 2022.  (Hosseini Decl., ¶ 2; Hosseini Decl., Ex. 1, Subpoena.)  In opposition, Amtech asserts that the Subpoena was not properly served.

The court finds that Howard Management has not met its burden of showing that Amtech was served with the Subpoena in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.220 and therefore denies Howard Management’s motion.

First, the Proof of Service attached to the Subpoena is incomplete and does not show proper service.  “Any person may serve the subpoena by personal delivery of a copy of it as follows: [¶] . . . (2) If the deponent is an organization, to any officer, director, custodian of records, or to any agent or employee authorized by the agent to accept service of a subpoena.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (b)(2).)  The Proof of Service (1) fails to state the name of the person served in section 1, subdivision (a); (2) fails to state the date and time of delivery in section 1, subdivisions (c) and (d); and (3) is not signed.  (Hosseini Decl., Ex. 1.)  The court finds that the unsigned and incomplete Proof of Service does not demonstrate proper service on Amtech.

Second, although Howard Management has submitted the declaration of its attorney, Sanaz Mirza Hosseini, which states that “Amtech was personally served with [the] deposition subpoena for business records on April 28, 2022, through its manager Kasie Lambert[,]” there is no foundation showing that counsel had personal knowledge of that statement.  (Hosseini Decl., ¶ 2.)  The court therefore finds that this declaration is insufficient to establish that Howard Management properly served Amtech with the Subpoena.

The court denies Howard Management’s requests for (1) attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,166.35, and (2) an award of forfeiture in the amount of $500.

ORDER

The court denies defendant and cross-complainant Howard Management Group’s motion to compel third party Amtech Elevator Services to comply with deposition subpoena.

The court orders cross-defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 8, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court