In marital dissolution proceedings, the husband issued a subpoena seeking the wife’s bank records. Unbeknownst to the husband, some of the wife’s father’s financial information was contained in those accounts. The wife’s father filed a motion to quash on September 5 arguing he had been given insufficient notice of the subpoena. A hearing date of October 2 was set. The husband’s lawyer wrote to the wife’s father and informed him the subpoena would be amended to exclude his financial information; an amended subpoena was issued. The husband’s lawyer informed the wife’s father that sanctions would be sought if he had to unnecessarily respond to his motion to quash. It was not withdrawn and on September 19, the husband’s lawyer filed a response to the motion to quash. In the response, he sought $4,450 for ten hours of legal work. On September 27, the wife’s father informed the court the motion to quash was withdrawn. At the October 2 hearing, the court ordered the wife’s father to pay the husband $2,225 for his attorney fees, pointing out the original motion was not made in bad faith but that it was not withdrawn early enough to prevent the necessity of the husband responding to the motion. On appeal, the appellate court stated: “We affirm and hold that a trial court may impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 against a litigant for pursuing a motion to quash that, even though legitimately filed, was rendered unnecessary by a subsequent amendment or withdrawal of the subpoena.” (Evilsizor v. Sweeney (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 1; October 28, 2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1304 [179 Cal.Rptr.3d 400].)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.