| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Quash deposition subpoena
TENTATIVE RULINGS
DEPT W15
JUDGE RICHARD Y. LEE
Date: May 21, 2026
Civil Court Reporters: The Court does not provide court reporters for law and motion hearings. Please see the Court’s website for rules and procedures for court reporters obtained by the Parties.
Submitting on the Tentative Ruling: If ALL counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not wish oral argument, please advise the Court’s clerk or courtroom attendant by calling (657) 622-5915. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling and the prevailing party shall give Notice of Ruling and prepare an Order for the Court’s signature if appropriate under CRC 3.1312. Do not call the department unless ALL parties submit on the tentative ruling.
Non-Appearances: If no one appears for the hearing and the Court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or whether the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. The Court interprets a party’s failure to appear at the hearing as a waiver of oral argument. Remote Appearances: Department W15 permits non-evidentiary proceedings, including law and motion, to be conducted remotely. If you are appearing remotely: (1) all counsel and self-represented parties appearing for such hearings must, prior to 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, check-in online via the Court’s civil video appearance website (link here); and (2) participants will then be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session.
Local Rule 375(c): Attorneys shall comply with Local Rule 375(c) which governs “Decorum for In-Person and Remote Court Appearances.” (Local Rule 375(c)) Specifically, the video and audio must be turned on and functioning during the hearing; and attorneys are expected to wear appropriate business attire. # 100 1513 Civic Center LLC vs. De Delgado, 25-01496605 Caboraca Investments, Inc.’s Motion to Quash the deposition subpoena that Plaintiff served on JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., with a production date of October 1, 2025, see ROA 27, came before the Court for a hearing on 04/09/2026. (ROA 82.)
In the Court’s Minute Order following the hearing, the Court stated the following:
“Second, the motions filed by 920 North Grand Ave, LLC and Caboraca Investments, Inc. to quash the deposition subpoena that Plaintiff served on JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
N.A., with a production date of October 1, 2025 were not served on the witness (Chase) as required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985(g). (ROAs 23 and 27.) As stated above, the motion filed by 920 North Grand Ave, LLC is VACATED. Caboraca Investments, Inc.’s motion, however, is CONTINUED TO May 21, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
“Moving party shall file a proof of service on Chase no later than 16 court days before the continued hearing.” (ROA).)
As set forth above, the Court ordered that Caboraca Investments, Inc. was to file a proof of service establishing service of its motion to quash the deposition subpoena at issue on Chase no later than 16 court days before the continued hearing.
Caboraca Investments, Inc. failed to file this proof of service and therefore has not complied with the statutory notice requirements pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985(g).
As such, the motion to quash is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Moving party to give notice. 101 Professional Matchmaking, LLC vs. The Standard Agency, Inc, 25-01518363 Motion for Orders Plaintiffs, Professional Matchmaking, LLC (“PM”); Model Quality Introductions, Inc., (“MQI”); and Craig Donaldson (“Donaldson”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for orders (1) finding that disputes arising under the October 13, 2023, Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) are not arbitrable, and (2) staying JAMS Arbitration Case No. 5200002778 involving a dispute arising under Donaldson’s Employment Agreement, pending resolution of this action.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant, The Standard Agency, Inc. (“TSA”) instituted an arbitration action against Donaldson on October 4, 2025, with JAMS, Case #5200002778, that inappropriately asserts claims that arise under the APA and that are not arbitrable as the APA does not contain an arbitration clause. Plaintiffs assert that only the TSA-Donaldson Employment Agreement contains an arbitration clause, and those