| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Petitioner is ordered to pay all necessary fees and costs for the transfer. If those costs and fees are not paid within 30 days after the date of this order, the court may, on a duly noticed motion by any party or the court’s own motion at a Review Hearing re Transfer, dismiss this proceeding without prejudice.
The clerk shall give notice of this order to the transfer clerk.
A Review Hearing re Transfer is set for 08/26/26 at 1:30pm in Department CM07 in connection with ruling on this motion. No appearance will be necessary if the matter is transferred before that date.
The hearing on Petition currently set for 06/11/26 at 9:00 AM in Dept. CM06 is ADVANCED to this date and ordered OFF-CALENDAR.
Counsel for Trustee is ordered to give notice of this ruling to all persons entitled to notice in this case.
01430250 Inouye - Trust TENTATIVE RULING
Case: Inouye - Trust 01430250
Calendar No.: 3
Date: 05/20/26
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (ROA 271)
On 9/29/25, Proposed Conservatee Laura Michiko Inouye, by and through her court-appointed counsel, W. Rod Stern, moved to quash a subpoena issued to Charles Schwab & Co, Inc. by Petitioner/Respondent Kimberly Woodroof.
The subpoena was withdrawn after the case settled. Judgment was entered on or about 5/11/26. (ROA 340.) Laura requests that this motion go forward as to the issue of fees.
Laura’s notice of motion seeks attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2(a), which states in full as follows:
(a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section
1987 or under Section 1987.1, 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.
(Emphasis added.)
Based on the foregoing language, making a ruling under Section 1987.1. (i.e., to quash, modify, or limit the subpoena) is a condition precedent to awarding expenses in connection with the motion. Here, the court is not making an order under Section 1987.1.
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?”
While the mootness of a discovery motion does not eliminate the right to an award of sanctions requested under the Discovery Act (see e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348), Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 is not under the Discovery Act. The plain language of Section 1987.2 leaves the court without discretion to award sanctions.
Furthermore, the court does not find that the motion was made or opposed without substantial justification. The term “substantial justification” means a justification that “is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact.” (Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App. 4th 1424, 1434.) The court finds a reasonable basis in law and fact for the arguments advanced by both parties in this case.
The motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling unless notice is waived at the hearing.
01395059 Hamilton – TENTATIVE RULING Trust Case: Hamilton – Trust 01395059
Calendar No.: 5
Date: 05/20/26
MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY (ROA 60, 61, AND 62)