On 06/22/2012 QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against MARK KING. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are C. EDWARD SIMPSON and DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
C. EDWARD SIMPSON
DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN
QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC
DOES 1 THRUGH 10
FERNS ADAMS & ASSOCIATES
VANLOCHEM & CHESNEY LLP
VANLOCHEM & ASSOCIATES LLP
BURSTEIN ARDEN DEVLIN
Notice (of Continuance of Judgment Debtor Examination); Filed by QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Application (and Order for Appearance and Examination; Enforcement of Judgment; Judgment Debtor); Filed by QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Relocation Rescheduling; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2014-02-07 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination (Judgment Debtor Examination Hrng; Continued by Court) -Read MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Joined PartyRead MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other (RETURN ON ATTACHMENT/EXECUTION UNSATISFIED ); Filed by Joined PartyRead MoreRead Less
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Application ; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum-Points and Authorities (in support of writ ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Application - Miscellaneous (for writ of possession ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice (of application for writ ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons FiledRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: GC049707 Hearing Date: March 13, 2020 Dept: NCB
North Central District
Quick cash funding Llc
Case No.: GC049707
Hearing Date: March 13, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
(1) lotus bai’s motion to quash civil subpoena duces tecum; and
(2) lc2 usa, inc.’s motion to quash service & civil subpoena duces tecum
A. Allegations and Relevant Procedural Background
Plaintiff Quick Cash Funding LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it became the owner of a written contract under which Defendant Mark King (“Defendant”) borrowed money from Plaintiff. Defendant provided Plaintiff with a security interest in a 2011 Mercedes-Benz GL550 motor vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant defaulted by failing to make payments, such that $60,452.13 is due and owing. Plaintiff also claims that it is now the legal owner of the vehicle. The complaint, filed June 22, 2012, alleges causes of action for: (1) claim and delivery of personal property; and (2) money on a contract.
On September 14, 2012, the default of Defendant was entered. On October 11, 2012, default judgment was entered against Defendant in the sum of $63,141.45.
On December 13, 2012, a Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) was filed by Plaintiff against Defendant for the sum of $69,598.33.
B. Relevant Background and Motions on Calendar
On July 19, 2019, Defendant failed to appear for his debtor examination and thus the Court held a bench warrant until September 5, 2019. On September 5, 2019, Defendant failed to appear again, and the Court ordered and issued a bench warrant. On October 16, 2019, Defendant appeared, but Plaintiff requested the hearing be continued. On November 15, 2019, Defendant appeared and the parties held the debtor examination.
On January 10, 2020, Defendant and Lotus Bai appeared for a debtor examination, and Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff had not been provided all requested documents. Thus, the examination was continued. On February 14, 2020, the judgment debtor hearing was argued and the Court ordered both Defendant and Bai to appear on March 13, 2020.
Concurrently set with the Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination as to Defendant and Bai (Custodian of Records) are two motions to quash.
On February 13, 2020, subpoenaed deponent Lotus Bai aka Qui Ping Bai (“Bai”) filed a motion to quash civil subpoena deuces tecum. Bai filed an amended motion on February 20, 2020. The Court will consider the arguments raised in the amended motion.
On February 20, 2020, subpoenaed deponent LC2 USA, Inc. (“LC2”) filed a motion to quash services and civil subpoena duces tecum.
On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed opposition briefs to the motions.
On March 6, 2020, Bai and LC2 filed reply briefs.
DISCUSSION CCP §708.120 states:
(a) Upon ex parte application by a judgment creditor who has a money judgment and proof by the judgment creditor by affidavit or otherwise to the satisfaction of the proper court that a third person has possession or control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the judgment debtor in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250), the court shall make an order directing the third person to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to answer concerning such property or debt. The affidavit in support of the judgment creditor's application may be based on the affiant's information and belief.
(b) Not less than 10 days prior to the date set for the examination, a copy of the order shall be:
(1) Served personally on the third person.
(2) Served personally or by mail on the judgment debtor.
(c) If the property in the third person's possession or control in which the judgment debtor has an interest or the debt owed by the third person to the judgment debtor is described in the affidavit or application for an order under subdivision (a) in a manner reasonably adequate to permit it to be identified, service of the order on the third person creates a lien on the judgment debtor's interest in the property or on the debt for a period of one year from the date of the order unless extended or sooner terminated by the court.
A. Bai’s Motion
Bai moves to quash the civil subpoena duces tecum pursuant to CCP §1987.1, arguing that Plaintiff lacks the required declaration of good cause for the requested documents. In November 2019, Bai received a civil subpoena deuces tecum for personal appearance and production of documents. (Mot., Ex. B.) The civil subpoena states:
“Witness is to produce all records of LC2 USA INC. including checkbook, bank statements, promissory notes, paystubs, and state and federal income tax returns for the period of 1/1/2012 – present. Witness is also to bring original and/or copies of the registration to any and all motor vehicles, real property, and other assets and trusts in this LC2 USA INC.’s name.”
The Court grants Bai’s motion to quash for the following reasons.
First, Bai argues that Plaintiff has not submitted a copy of an affidavit with the subpoena duces tecum “showing good cause for the production of the matters and things described in the subpoena, specifying the exact matters or things desired to be produced, setting forth in full detail the materiality thereof to the issues involved in the case, and stating that the witness has the desired matters or things in his or her possession or under his or her control.” (CCP §1985(b).) Bai attaches the subpoena duces tecum served on her. The first page of the civil subpoena is signed by Arden Burstein, but the second page which includes the form declaration is not signed. Thus, the subpoena lacks a proper declaration as required under CCP §1985(b).
Second, even if the declaration was signed, the statements supporting good cause and materiality are sparse. The unsigned declaration states that good cause exists for the production of documents to assist judgment creditor/Plaintiff in collection on the judgment and that the documents are material because they will provide evidence of Defendant’s ability (or lack thereof”) to pay the judgment. (Mot. at Ex. B at p.3.) However, “[t]o establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) It is also insufficient “merely to state the documents produced were material. Facts must be shown upon which the court can see that the books and records sought to be produced contain material entries. A mere allegation that the records are material, in the absence of any facts supporting such allegation, constitutes a conclusion of law which does not meet the requirements of [section 1985].” (Seven Up Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County The statements in the unsigned declaration fail to rise to this level of showing how the wide scope of documents sought are all necessary and relevant for the stated purpose.
Third, Bai argues that the financial records and information of LC2 and Bai (owner of LC2) are not relevant to this action regarding Defendant. Bai argues that neither she nor LC2 are parties to this action or judgment debtors. In her declaration, Bai states that on March 9, 2010, she filed a petition to terminate her marriage with Defendant, and the Dissolution of Judgment was entered on August 5, 2010. (Bai Decl., ¶3, Ex. A.) She states that on July 5, 2013, she filed and registered LC2 as a corporation, which she formed from her own personal funds and she is the sole owner of LC2. (Id., ¶4.) Bai states that Defendant (judgement debtor in this action) did not contribute any funds to LC2 and is not a shareholder or have any ownership interest in LC2. (Id., ¶5.) She states that Defendant is an employee of LC2 with a monthly salary of $1,500 per month with housing benefits and has use of the company car. (Id., ¶6.)
Thus, she argues that complying with the subpoena is oppressive and would constitute an undue burden as it dates back to January 2012 to the present and has no relevance on Plaintiff’s collection efforts against Defendant.
The Court finds merit to Bai’s arguments. The subpoena served on Bai is overbroad and Plaintiff has not justified why the entire scope of all of LC2’s financials and assets must be turned over to Defendant. While there is arguably some relevance of seeking documents from LC2 as Defendant’s employer, this would only require a limited scope of documents for the time period that Defendant was employed by LC2.
Based on the lack of declaration in compliance with CCP §1985 and the overly broad scope of the subpoena, the Court grants Bai’s motion to quash the civil subpoena duces tecum.
B. LC2’s Motion
LC2 moves to quash Plaintiff’s purported service of a civil subpoena duces tecum allegedly issued to the custodian of records of LC2, as well as quashing the subpoena itself. The subpoena seeks the same documents as the subpoena issued on Bai. (See Mot., Ex. B.)
First, LC2 argues that the proof of service of the subpoena shows that it was served on a “Jane Doe” the purported custodian of records at 4794 West Phillips Blvd., Ontario, California 91762 on December 22, 2019. (Mot., Ex. C.) However, LC2 provides its Secretary of State - Statement of Information, which shows that as of August 12, 2019, service of process must be made to Lotus Bai (the agent for service of process) at 20687-2 Amar Road #345, Walnut, California 91789. (Mot., Ex. D.) Thus, service of the subpoena was not properly made on LC2 through its custodian of records or at its business address. Thus, the subpoena may be quashed on this ground.
Second, LC2 argues that to the extent Plaintiff is seeking testimony/documents regarding Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff was required to serve a Notice to Consumer on Defendant. (CCP §1985.6.) A review of the subpoena documents shows that no Notice to Consumer was served on Defendant.
Third, LC2 makes the same arguments raised by Bai in her motion to quash, including that the subpoena does not have a requisite affidavit of good cause and materiality pursuant to CCP §1985 and that LC2’s testimony/documents are not relevant to this action asserted against Defendant. The Court finds merit to LC2’s arguments as discussed above.
Thus, the Court grants LC2’s motion to quash the civil subpoena duces tecum.
The Court grants the motions to quash primarily on procedural grounds. The parties should meet and confer following the hearing on these two motions on the scope of the documents sought and their relevance.
Further, Plaintiff states in the opposition briefs that in the event that the affidavits in the initial subpoenas were deficient, he has served new subpoenas on Bai and LC2 on February 24, 2020. As shown in Plaintiff’s opposition papers, counsel Arden D. Burstein provides his (unsigned) declaration stating the reasons for seeking the documents from Bai and LC2, such as Defendant being listed as an officer of LC2 in the past; the fact that Defendant currently lives with Bai and drives a Mercedes—both of which are owned by LC2; and whether Bai is fraudulently transferring from LC2 to herself and Defendant, and between Bai and Defendant to avoid creditors. Thus, the parties should meet and confer on the recently served versions of the subpoenas. (To the extent that Bai and LC2 argue that the February 24, 2020 subpoenas are also defective, such arguments are outside the scope of the motion papers, which are based on earlier-served subpoenas.)
Bai requests sanctions in the amount of $3,001.96 for bringing this motion. LC2 requests sanctions in the amount of $1,881.96 for bringing this motion. The Court awards sanctions to Bai in the amount of $1,196.96 (3 hours x a reasonable rate of $250/hour, plus $446.96 for costs and filing fees). The Court awards sanctions to LC2 in the amount of $1,196.96 (3 hours x a reasonable rate of $250/hour, plus $446.96 for costs and filing fees).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Bai’s motion to quash the civil subpoena duces tecum is granted. Plaintiff and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,196.96 to Bai, by and through counsel, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.
LC2’s motion to quash the civil subpoena duces tecum is granted. Plaintiff and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,196.96 to LC2, by and through counsel, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.
The parties should meet and confer on Plaintiff’s recently served copies of the amended subpoenas and affidavits (served February 24, 2020) and cooperate in good faith to have Bai and LC2’s examinations go forward. While the initial subpoenas were improper in form, the continuing relationship between Bai and King indicates that there is a potential for fraudulent conveyance and that some properly requested information will need to be produced.
Bai and LC2 shall provide notice of this order.
 According to the August 12, 2019 Statement of Information, LC2’s business address, CEO (Lotus Bai), Secretary and CFO (Defendant), Directors (Lotus Bai), and agent for service of process (Lotus Bai) are all located at the 20687-2 Amar Road address. (Mot., Ex. D.)
According to the January 29, 2020 Statement of Information, all of LC2’s addresses are located at 20687-2 Amar Road. (Mot., Ex. E.) All Officers, Directors, and Service of Process lists Lotus Bai only. (Id.)
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases