Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00970, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00970    Hearing Date: May 11, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 5-11-23

Case #21CHCV00970

Trial Date: 6-12-23

COMPEL

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Lion Technologies, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Third Party, Rafael Portillo

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Lamonte Johnson purchased certain real property on July 20, 1970 located at 10625 Gothic Avenue, Granada Hills. On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff visited the property and discovered the locks the front door were changed, and landscaping work was done on the property without the permission of Plaintiff. On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff received a copy of a fraudulent deed of conveyance whereby title to the property was purportedly changed to defendant Lion Technologies for a sale price of $435,000. Plaintiff alleges the signature on the grant deed was forged, and denies receiving any sales proceeds. Lion Technologies subsequently executed  Note and Deed of Trust on the property to defendants Investors First Choice, as beneficiary and Aztec Financial as trustee. 

On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint for Declaratory Relief, Quiet Title, Cancellation of Grant Deed, Cancellation of Deed of Trust, Fraud, and Slander of Title.

RULING: Denied.

Defendants Lion Technologies, LLC and Rehabbers Financial, Inc, dba Aztec Financial and Dba Investors Choice move to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena served on third party Rafael Portillo. Defendants seek the deposition of the third party on grounds that Portillo is a percipient witness.

The motion is unopposed. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b) ... may make an order … directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare...”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

The subpoena was personally served on March 2, 2023. [Declaration of Andrew Beall, Ex. 1-2.] The deponent failed to appear for the March 30, 2023, scheduled deposition. [Id., Ex. 3.] The subpoena remains outstanding. The motion was filed less than 60 days from the date of the non-appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).)

The proof of service of the motion, however, indicates e-mail and Unites States Postal service on Rafael Portillo. Rafael Portillo is not an appearing party in the action. “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.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346; See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6.) The motion provides no indication of an agreement by the deponent to accept service by mail or e-mail.

The unopposed motion is therefore DENIED.

Final Status Conference and Jury Trial remain set for June 1 and June 12, 2023, respectively.

Defendant to give notice.