On 02/16/2018 P STANDARD GENERAL LTD filed an Other - Sister State Judgment lawsuit against DOV CHARNEY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are EDWARD B. MORETON and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
EDWARD B. MORETON
SERENA R. MURILLO
STANDARD GENERAL MASTER FUND L.P.
P STANDARD GENERAL LTD.
APEX REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LLC
ART COMMERCE & MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS LLC
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.
TARAN JESSICA ESQ.
6/20/2018: ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT CREDITORS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CHARGING JUDGMENT DERTOR'S MEMBERSHIP INTEREST IN ART, COMMERCE AND MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, LLC AND APEX REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, L
7/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
8/29/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION JUDGMENT CREDITORS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADVANCING THE HEARING ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA SERVED ON THIRD PARTY WELLS FARGO
12/23/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 12/23/2019
2/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION)
2/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 02/27/2020, MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)]
2/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 02/27/2020
5/24/2018: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -
5/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE
8/2/2018: DECLARATION OF JESSICA TARAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT AND ORDER RESTRAINING JUDGMENT DEBTOR (C.C.P. 708.510, 708.520)
8/2/2018: JUDGMENT CREDITORS' NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR AN ASSIGNMENT ORDER, RESTRAINING ORDER, AND RELATED RELIEF (C.C.P. 708.510, 708.520]; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
8/16/2018: NOTICE OF MINUTES ENTERED ON AUGUST 9, 2018, REASSIGNING MATTER TO DEPARTMENT 94 FOR POST-JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS
9/28/2018: Minute Order -
12/26/2018: Declaration - Declaration Decl of Jessica Taran in sup of JC app and ord for exam of and subp duces tecum to Yaghoub Nourany o/b/o Neman Brothers & Assoc., Inc.
12/26/2018: Declaration - Declaration decl of Jessica Taran in sup of jc app for an ord for app and exam of and civ subp duces tecum to third party David Nisenbaum on behalf of Los Angeles Apparel, inc.
2/22/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
2/22/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
4/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (BENCH WARRANT RECALL)
Hearing05/11/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and ExaminationRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/28/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and ExaminationRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/27/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and ExaminationRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/06/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/02/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and ExaminationRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/24/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and ExaminationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 26, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Seal (Petitioner's Notice of Motion and Motion to Seal Consumer Financial Records Conditionally Lodged Under Seal) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:30 PM in Department 26, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 02/28/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by 1st Class MailRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICERead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF RELATED CASERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketAPPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENTRead MoreRead Less
DocketJUDGMENT BASED ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT (CODE CIV. PROC.,. 1710.25)Read MoreRead Less
DocketJudgment; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketSister State Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketAPPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENTRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BS172538 Hearing Date: December 16, 2019 Dept: 94
P Standard General Ltd., et al. v. Charney, et al.
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP § 1987.1)
Judgment Debtor Dov Charney’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Award of Sanctions is DENIED.
Judgment Creditors P Standard General Ltd. and Standard General Master Fund, LP (“Judgment Creditors”) filed the instant Application for entry of Sister State Judgment on February 16, 2018 against Judgment Debtor Dov Charney (“Judgment Debtor”). (RJN, Exh. V.) Judgment Creditors have three judgments against Judgment Debtor in the principal amount of nearly $30 million. (Motion, RJN, Exhs. 1-2.) On July 16, 2019, the Court granted Judgment Creditors’ motion to amend the third judgment to add Apex Real Estate Management LLC (“Apex RE”) and Art, Commerce and Manufacturing Solutions, LLC (“ACMS”) as judgment debtors.
“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 582-83.) Either the nonparty witness who has been subpoenaed or any party to the action may challenge the deposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (b).) A deposition subpoena may be quashed for: (1) defects in form or content of the subpoena (e.g., inadequate description of requested records); (2) defects in service of the subpoena (e.g., failure to satisfy the requirements of providing notice to consumer; (3) requesting production of records not within the permissible scope of discovery; and (4) being unjustly burdensome or oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
Request for Judicial Notice
The request for judicial notice is granted as to Exhibits 1-10 pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) and (d). However, to the extent the request for judicial notice includes court records, the court does not take judicial notice of hearsay statements therein. (See Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)
1. Documents reflecting or referring to any account maintained by Charney or to which he is a signatory or held in the name of LA Apparel or the other entities named in the Subpoena (requests 1 and 2);
2. Correspondence between Wells Fargo and Charney relating to the accounts referenced in requests 1 and 2 (requests 7 and 8);
Documents reflecting any asset that Charney, LA Apparel or the other entities named in the 1. Subpoena have held with Wells Fargo from October 23, 2017 to the present (requests 3 and 4);
2. Documents reflecting any loans borrowed or guaranteed by Charney, LA Apparel or the other entities named in the Subpoena from any financial institution or person for the period October 23, 2017 to the present (requests 5 and 6);
3. Correspondence between Wells Fargo and Charney reflecting any loan applications or debt refinancing by Charney for the period October 23, 2017 to the present (request 9);
4. Documents reflecting or referring to LA Apparel or the other entities named in the Subpoena (request 10);
Judgment Debtor initially brought this Motion to Quash as to records for Apex RE, ACMS and LAA. Following the Court’s order adding Apex RE and ACMS as judgment debtors, Judgment Debtor has withdrawn his objection as to those entities’ records. The objections remain only as to LAA. Judgment Debtor first objects to the subpoena on grounds of financial privacy. He cites to the constitutional right of privacy, but as the opposition points out, a corporation’s right of privacy is not constitutional derived.
We conclude corporations do not have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution. Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution protects the privacy rights of “people” only. “ ‘[T]he constitutional provision simply does not apply to corporations.’ ” (Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1287[50 Cal.Rptr.2d 366], quoting Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 791[195 Cal.Rptr. 393]; see Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1504[66 Cal.Rptr.3d 833] [corporation acknowledged that it had no right of privacy under the California Constitution].) While corporations do have a right to privacy, it is not a constitutional right. The corporate right to privacy is a lesser right than that held by human beings and is not considered a fundamental right. (Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, at pp. 1287-1288, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 366.)
(SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-756.) Resolution of the parties’ competing interests—Judgment Creditors’ interest in collecting on the judgments and LAA’s privacy interests—is to be determined by a balancing test. “The discovery’s relevance to the subject matter of the pending dispute and whether the discovery ‘appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ is balanced against the corporate right of privacy.” (Id. at 756.) A judgment creditor’s interest in obtaining information to collect on a judgment is also “a valid significant interest.” (Id. at 755.)
Judgment Debtor argues that the documents sought regarding LAA are not relevant to collection of the judgments. Doubts about the relevance of information sought are to be resolved in favor of discovery. (Id. at 756.) Judgment Debtor contends that LAA has no connection to this matter other than as his employer and is irrelevant to this action because it is not a party nor determined to be his alter ego. While LAA has not been added as a judgment debtor, it does not have a traditional employer-employee relationship with Judgment Debtor. Judgment Creditors’ evidence demonstrates the extensive relationship between LAA, Judgment Debtor, Apex RE and ACMS, as follows.
Based on the foregoing, Judgment Debtor’s Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoena and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Judgment Creditors to give notice.