Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV07543, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07543    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff David Carranza filed this action against Defendants Mohammad Ali Zareh DDS, Inc. (“Dental Office”) and Charles Chan-Eung Park.

On March 16, 2023, Defendant Dental Office was dismissed with prejudice.

On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce and compel compliance with a subpoena served on Dental Office.  Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.

A party may move to compel compliance with a subpoena that requires the attendance of a witness or production of documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)  The court may 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).)

Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records on Dental Office on Dental Office on February 17, 2023, when Dental Office was still a defendant.  (Carranza Decl., Ex. G.)  On March 8, 2023, Dental Office’s counsel emailed Plaintiff stating, “We also understand that you served a subpoena on my client's office referable to a number of categories of records or documents.  As my client is represented, any and all requests for documents need to be directed to our office for response.  We request you do not have any contact with nor serve my clients with any documents or correspondence.”  (Carranza Decl., Ex. I.)  On March 14, 2023, Dental Office’s counsel served a formal objection to the subpoena on the grounds of (1) improper service of the subpoena directly on a then-party represented by counsel, (2) irrelevance, and (3) overbreadth.  (Carranza Decl., Ex. J.)  The objection also noted, “The appropriate method to obtain these records would be by appropriately noticed and served Request for Production of Records.”  Dental Office’s objections, served while it was a defendant, are proper and are sustained.

The motion is DENIED.  Dental Office’s request for sanctions is also denied.

On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration stating that he “will not move forward with case no. 22STCV07543 and will thereby not attend the hearing set for April 11, 2023 at 8:30am nor the hearing on April 18, 2023 at 8:30am.”  The Court has already scheduled an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal on May 9, 2023 at 8:30 AM.  If Plaintiff wishes to dismiss this action before then, he may do so by filing a Request For Dismissal.  Alternatively, Plaintiff may confirm his request to dismiss the action at the April 18, 2023 hearing on this motion.

Clerk to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

       Dated this 18th day of April 2023