Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV23254, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23254    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 39

Will Lightburne v. Tony Bland, et al.
Case No. 21STCV23254

Motion to Quash

            Plaintiff filed this complaint to enforce and collect money due on a Medi-Cal creditor’s claim, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14009.5.  In brief, Plaintiff alleges as follows:  Barbara Harris, also known as Barbara Jean Harris, died on or about January 14, 2016, while in possession of real and personal property with an approximate value of $537,339.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 20, 23.)  The Department of Health Care Services (the “Department”) paid for Ms. Harris’s healthcare through Medi-Cal.  (Complaint, ¶ 20.)  Specifically, the Department paid a total of $61,198.15 for Ms. Harris’s healthcare.  (Complaint, ¶ 21.)  Now, Plaintiff seeks payment of this amount plus costs and interest from Defendants.

            Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 14009.5 and California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 50961, when certain decedents have received health care services under Medi-Cal and payments for their health care premiums have been made under Medi-Cal, the Department shall claim reimbursement for these payments.  Reimbursement shall be claimed from the estate of the decedent or from any recipient of the decedent’s property by distribution or survival, and shall be in an amount equal to the payments for health care premiums and health care services provided to the decedent, or the value of the property received by any recipient from the decedent by distribution or survival, whichever is less. 

            Defendant Tony Bland (“Defendant”) moves to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JP Morgan”) on the grounds that “the subpoena duces tecum fails to include a declaration containing a sufficient statement of materiality as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985(b).  Plaintiff was not required to do so, as section 1985(b) has been superseded by Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.510, which states: “A deposition subpoena under subdivision (a) need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the production of the documents and things designated.”  (See Terry v. Slico (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 352, 357-358.)  Defendant also argues that the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive, but the subpoena was issued to JP Morgan, not Defendant, so he has no basis to raise this argument.  Finally, the relevance of the subpoena is clear: Plaintiff is attempting to locate assets from Defendants’ mother, Barbara Jean Harris, and Defendants were her heirs.

            Based upon the foregoing, the motion to quash is denied.  JP Morgan shall comply with the subpoena within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.  Plaintiffs may lodge a proposed order for the Court’s signature, if necessary for JP Morgan.  Plaintiff shall provide notice to Defendants, as well as JP Morgan.