Superior Court of California800 Ninth Street, 3rd FloorWednesday, October 31, 2012, 9:00 AMDepartment54Shelleyanne W.L. Chang, JudgeC. Chambers/T. Fazzi, BailiffE. Higginbotham, Clerk
To request limited oral argument on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7848(Department 54) by 4:00 p.m. the court day before this hearing and advise opposing counsel. If no call ismade, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. Local Rule 3.04.
NOTICE:
Item1
2008-00008867-CU-FRAnthony Hill vs. Broadway Auto Repair and Tire Center
Nature of Proceeding:Filed By:Motion to Withdraw as CounselSemmens, Michael P.
The motion to be relieved as counsel is DENIED without prejudice.In support of a motion to withdraw, counsel must lodge and serve the notice of motionand motion to be relieved of counsel (Civil Form MC-051), declaration (Civil Form MC-052) and order (Civil Form MC-053) pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1362(c),(d)& (e). This is a mandatory requirement. Counsel’s moving papers do not contain therequired judicial council declaration form, and the motion is therefore denied withoutprejudice.The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule3.1312 or further notice is required.
Item2
2008-00012827-CU-BCBahija Iken vs. Robert Charles La Bella
Nature of Proceeding:Filed By:Motion for SanctionsParker, Alden J.
Defendants Robert Charles LaBella, et al’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED, asfollows.Defendants contend that sanctions against pro per Plaintiff Bahija Iken are warrantedas a result of her issuance of a subpoena to the California Department of Real Estate(DRE) after the discovery cut-off in this action, and refusing to timely withdraw thesubpoena.Discovery in this action was required to have been completed by September 10, 2012.Trial was initially set for October 9, 2012. On September 12, 2012, Plaintiff served asubpoena on the DRE. Plaintiff did not notify Defendants that the subpoena had beenserved. On September 21, 2012, Defendants received a letter from the DRE notifying
Defendants that Plaintiff had requested various records via subpoena, and that therecords would be provided unless Defendants confirmed their objection to thesubpoena. (Brannen Decl. Ex. B.) On the same day, Defendants’ counsel contactedPlaintiff to inform her that the subpoena was improper because it was not served onDefendants and because it was served after the discovery cut-off. (Parker Decl. ¶2.)Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff that unless she provided notification by the endof the day (September 21, 2012) that Plaintiff would withdraw the subpoena,Defendants would file a motion to quash the subpoena. (Parker Decl. Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not respond that she would withdraw the subpoena. (Parker Decl. ¶3.)On October 1, 2012, Defendants notified Plaintiff that they would be appearing exparte on October 4, 2012 in order for the Court to hear their motion to quash thesubpoena. (Brannen Decl. Ex. D.) Defendants stated that if Plaintiff wished to settlethe matter before that date, she was to contact Defendants’ counsel “before October 4,2012, in writing.” (Brannen Decl. Ex. D.) On October 2, 2012, Defendants filed their exparte application.Defendants contend that Plaintiff called Defendants’ counsel on October 2, 2012 after receiving Defendants’ moving papers and informed him that she wished to withdrawthe subpoena. (Parker Decl. ¶6.) Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff that theywould not withdraw Defendants’ ex parte application unless Plaintiff provided writtenconfirmation that she would with draw the subpoena, and provided Defendants with acourtesy copy of the letter to the DRE withdrawing the subpoena. (Parker Decl. Ex. C)Defendants assert that the following day, October 3, 2012, Plaintiff wrote toDefendants’ counsel that she had left a phone message with a DRE agent, whose lastname she did not know, requesting to withdraw the subpoena. (Parker Decl. Ex. G.)Defendants contend that their counsel attempted to contact DRE to confirm that thesubpoena would be withdrawn, but was unable to do so by the end of the day onOctober 3, 2012. (Brannen Decl. ¶10.) On 11:30 a.m., on October 4, 2012, two hoursbefore the ex parte hearing, counsel for Defendants received a phone call from DREconfirming that the subpoena had been withdrawn. (Brannen Decl. ¶10.) At the ex parte hearing, the Court denied Defendants’ application to quash thesubpoena and for sanctions on the grounds that because the matter was set for trial onOctober 9, 2012, there was insufficient time for the Court to consider the application.The application was denied without prejudice to Defendants’ resubmitting theapplication to the trial judge. However, earlier that day, the presiding judge grantedPlaintiff’s ex parte application for an order continuing the trial to November 6, 2012. Accordingly, Defendants now resubmit their request for sanctions against Plaintiff bynoticed motion. Defendants argue that despite being informed on September 21, 2012that the DRE subpoena was improper, Plaintiff failed to timely withdraw the subpoenaand never provided Defendants with the written confirmation of the withdrawal theyrequested. Defendants contend that as a result of Plaintiff’s conduct, they were forcedto incur the costs of preparing the ex parte application, and that monetary sanctionsagainst Plaintiff are appropriate.In opposition, Plaintiff disputes that she failed to timely withdraw the subpoena, andargues that Defendants’ ex parte application was unnecessary. Plaintiff contends thaton October 2, 2012, after the conclusion of the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert witnessin San Francisco, she advised Defendants’ counsel that she was withdrawing thesubpoena. (Iken Decl. ¶8.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ counsel told her he would
withdraw the ex parte application and request for sanctions if she sent him a copy of her request to the DRE to withdraw the subpoena. (Iken Decl. ¶8.) Plaintiff argues itwas understood that this could not take place until the following day, when shereturned to Sacramento. Plaintiff contends that on October 3, 2012, she contacted theDRE to withdraw the subpoena, and sent a copy of the letter requesting withdrawal of the subpoena to Defendants’ counsel. (Iken Decl. ¶10-13.) Therefore, Plaintiff contends she complied with Defendants’ counsel’s instruction to confirm withdrawal of the subpoena before October 4, 2012 in order to avoid Defendants’ application for anorder quashing the subpoena and request for sanctions.On reply, Defendants do not appear to dispute that Plaintiff provided writtenconfirmation of the withdrawal of the subpoena on October 3, 2012. However, it isapparent that Defendants first demanded that Plaintiff withdraw the subpoena onSeptember 21, 2012, nearly two weeks earlier, and that Plaintiff only agreed towithdraw the subpoena after Defendants filed their ex parte application to quash thesubpoena.Plaintiff’s service of the subpoena after the discovery cut-off and refusal to timelywithdraw it constitutes misuse of the discovery process. Monetary sanctions areappropriate. Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $2,650 for attorney’s feesand $120 in costs. The Court finds this proposed amount excessive, particularly in lightof the fact that Defendants appear to have had the opportunity to withdraw their exparte application on October 3, 2012, when Plaintiff contends she first provided writtennotification that the subpoena had been withdrawn. Accordingly, sanctions are awarded as follows. Plaintiff shall pay to Defendants amonetary sanction in the amount of $870 ($250/hr x 3 hr + $120 filing fees). Themonetary sanction is to be paid on or before November 26, 2012. If the sanction is notpaid by that date, Defendants may prepare for the court’s signature a formal order granting the sanction, which may be enforced as a separate judgment. (
Newland v.Superior Court
(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule3.1312 or further notice is required.
Item3
2010-00077089-CU-PABenny Tomasetti vs. Hemi Express Inc
Nature of Proceeding:Filed By:Motion to Quash Subpoena for Business RecordsRolfe, Randee
Plaintiffs Benny Tomasetti and Lorraine Tomasetti’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Business Records of Machado Trucking, Inc. is GRANTED.This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident involving a commercial tractor trailer driven by Plaintiff Benny Tomasetti and a second commercial tractor trailer driven byDefendant George Popovich. Plaintiff alleges he was injured as a result of the accidentand seeks damages, including damages for lost income.Defendants Popovich and his employer, Hemi Express, Inc. issued a subpoena to non-
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Fair Political Practice vs. Americans Responsible Leadership
458
Reads
2
Readcasts
2.0K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
