| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
Judgment Debtor argues that portions of the EJL are unconstitutional, such as the requirement that judgment debtors but not judgment creditors personally serve notices, the inapplicability of the marital privilege to the EJL, and the loosening of requirements for ex parte applications by judgment creditors for issuance of an order to appear for examination. This Court previously considered this issue in connection with Judgment Debtor’s prior to Motion Quash filed in 2024. The Court determined that there is no authority for these contentions. Moreover, As none of these EJL provisions are at issue and the arguments are irrelevant.
Judgment Debtor also appears to argue that the Subpoenas invade his right to privacy. Generally, financial information is protected by the right to privacy. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 741, 754.) However, the constitutional right to privacy is not absolute and even private information can be disclosed in some circumstances. Where a privacy right is at issue, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need of discovery. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)
The burden is on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, against which the court must consider the need for discovery identified by the opposing party. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 556.) Because banking records, such checks and other transactional documents are confidential, courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discovery with the right of banking customers to maintain reasonable privacy in the financial affairs. (Valley Bank of Nevada v.
Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 657.)
The need for discovery outweighs the privacy rights of Judgment Debtor. The Judgment was entered almost 20 years ago. The banking information is directly relevant to identify asserts to be used to satisfy the Judgment. It appears that Judgment Debtor has engaged in bad faith tactics to delay or avoid the satisfaction of the Judgment. DENIED
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?”
Sanctions
CCP § 1987.2(a) provides that in making an order pursuant to a motion made under Section 1987.1, the court may award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including 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. “Substantial justification” means “that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact.” (Evilsizor v. Sweeney (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1304, 1312.)
Here, the Motions appear to have been made without substantial justification. The Court previously denied Judgment Debtor’s motions to quash similar business records subpoenas based on identical, unfounded arguments. The Motions appear to be a further delay tactic. Sanctions granted in amount of $1,300.00 against judgment debtor.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME BUNCH PALMS TRAIL, LLC MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES BY
VS PHARM FRESH, LLC BUNCH PALMS TRAIL, LLC Tentative Ruling: No tentative. Hearing will be conducted on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 8:30 a.m., Department PS2.