Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV41076, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41076    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 39

Michael Amini v. 4525 Rosemead Blvd., LLC, et al.

Case No. 21STCV41076

Order #1 of 4

Motion to Quash Subpoena

            Plaintiff Michael Amini (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against 4525 Rosemead Blvd., LLC (“Rosemead”).  Plaintiff alleges as follows:

            Defendant owns real property located at 4525 Rosemead Boulevard in Pico Rivera, California 90660 (the “property”).  (Complaint, ¶ 7.)  Defendant operates a business on the property, namely “Green Auto,” which is an auto body repair business (the “business”).  (Id., ¶ 8.)  On or about August 30, 2021, the parties entered into written agreements for Plaintiff to purchase the property and business.  (Id., ¶ 9.)  Per the agreements, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant $5.3 million for the property and $900,000 for the business.  (Id., ¶ 11.)  Plaintiff made earnest money deposits of $100,000 for the property and $900,000 for the business.  (Id., ¶ 14.)  Defendant canceled the sale on November 3, 2021, which Plaintiff alleges was a breach of the contract.  (Id., ¶ 20.) 

            Defendant served a series of subpoenas seeking financial information about Plaintiff and his father, Sassan Amini.  Plaintiff moves to quash those subpoenas.  If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the Court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  In ruling on a motion to quash, “the Court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

            As an initial matter, the motion is denied because the Court has insufficient information to resolve the issue.  Plaintiff did not provide copies of the subpoenas.  Plaintiff did not include a separate statement setting forth the specific demands.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).)  Plaintiff did not even quote the specific demands in the motion.  Plaintiff merely represents that the subpoenas seek “personal financial information” pertaining to other purchases of commercial and residential property. 

            The motion also is denied on the merits.  Plaintiff and his father have a right to privacy in their financial information.  (See Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656-657.)  However, that right may be waived if the financial records are directly relevant to this litigation.  (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)  Plaintiff seeks specific performance, which requires him to demonstrate that he was “ready and able to perform” under the contract.  (See, e.g., Am-Cal Inv. Co. v. Sharlyn Estates, Inc. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 526, 539.)  Therefore, Plaintiff’s financial records concerning other property transactions are relevant to this case.  Similarly, the financial records of Plaintiff’s father are relevant based upon Defendant’s evidence that his father applied for the loan in order for Plaintiff to purchase the property.  Indeed, Plaintiff does not deny that his father played a role in the instant transaction.

            Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.  The Court will reconsider this ruling if Plaintiff withdraws the request for specific performance.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #2 of 4

Motions to Enforce Subpoena

            Plaintiff Michael Amini (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against 4525 Rosemead Blvd., LLC (“Rosemead”).  Rosemead moves to enforce various subpoenas to third parties.  The motions were not served on any of the third parties, let alone by personal service as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346: “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.”

            Based upon the foregoing, Rosemead’s motions are denied without prejudice.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. 

Order #3 of 4

Requests for Sanctions

            The Court denies all requests for sanctions.  Plaintiff’s counsel filed a procedurally-defective motion which was denied on the merits. Defendant filed a series of procedurally defective motions.  Neither party has been mindful of the Court’s time in connection with these motions.  Therefore, neither side is entitled to sanctions.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.    

Order #4 of 4

Case Management Order

            The Court discharges the Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, as every defendant has now been served and has answered.  The Court sets the following dates:

            Final Status Conference:        July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

            Trial:                                       July 29, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

The parties shall prepare and file joint trial documents on or before July 3, 2025.  The parties shall disclose all witnesses they intend to call in their respective cases-in-chief, and identify and produce all exhibits they intend to introduce in their respective cases-in-chief, on or before July 3, 2025.  The parties shall comply with all pretrial procedures for Department #39.  Jury fees shall be posted within ten (10) days, if they have not been posted already, or the parties shall waive jury.

            Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.