Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ashford v. Goeppinger-Curran Development

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 13, 2009

BURK N. ASHFORD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GOEPPINGER-CURRAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matters before the Court are the (1) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Superior Court of San Diego County (Doc. # 19); (2) Motion for Court Order Clerks Entry of Default (Doc. # 21); (3) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Chicago Title Company (Doc. # 24); (4) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against San Diego Superior Court (Doc. # 26); and (5) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Chicago Title Company (Doc. # 28).

I. Motion for Court Order Clerks Entry of Default

Plaintiff "requests this Honorable Court to order the Court Clerk to enter into the record the Clerk's entry of default." Mot. for Order, p. 1. Plaintiff contends that the Clerk of the Court "failed to do as such as previously requested and thereby prevents and impedes this Case from moving forward." Id. Plaintiff contends that "Defendant(s) have been duly served by and through their attorney," and that Defendants "have acknowledged and responded to the Complaint in an unsatisfactory manner through their attorney and are subject to the judgment and sanctions of such a judgment." Id. at 1-2.

The Motion for Order Clerks Entry of Default does not specify which Defendants are in default. Aside from the general assertion that Defendants have not satisfactorily acknowledged and responded to the Complaint, Plaintiff does not provide any detail with respect to how or why Defendant(s) are in default. The Clerk of the Court has already denied a request for entry of default filed by Plaintiff (Doc. # 16), and Plaintiff does not provide a sufficient basis for this Court to order the Clerk of the Court to enter default. In light of the foregoing, the Motion for Court Order Clerks Entry of Default is denied.

II. Motions for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Superior Court

Plaintiff filed four Motions for Contempt of Court and Seizure of Documents, two against the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, and two against Chicago Title Company. Plaintiff contends that subpoenas duces tecum were served upon the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego and Chicago Title Company. Plaintiff contends that the performance date was May 18, 2009, and that "such date has passed with the served part[ies] willfully and deliberately refusing to" comply with the subpoenas. (Docs. # 19, p. 2; # 24, p. 2;# 26, p. 2; # 28, p. 2). Plaintiff contends that "[s]uch action being dilatory, delaying and intentional deserves punishment in the most severe form as the Court deems appropriate." Id.

A. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

On July 10, 2009, the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego filed the Opposition (Doc. # 23). The Superior Court contends that on May 6, 2009, it served an objection to the subpoena "informing Plaintiff... that he may obtain certified copies of the Superior Court's file... by presenting himself to the Superior Court's North County Division and paying the requisite fees." Opposition, p. 2. The Superior Court contends that its objections to the subpoena are meritorious, and "requests that Plaintiff's Motion be denied, or in the alternative, that Plaintiff be required to file a noticed Motion to Compel, affording the Superior Court the opportunity to raise its meritorious objections before the court." Id.

The Superior Court contends that Plaintiff has complied with the procedures required to obtain records in the custody of the Superior Court. Plaintiff has not shown that the Superior Court has acted in bad faith or has otherwise engaged in conduct which would warrant holding the Superior Court in contempt. The Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego is denied.

B. Chicago Title Company

On July 30, 2009, Chicago Title Company filed the Opposition (Doc. # 22). Chicago Title contends that copies of the documents requested in the subpoena were prepared and sent to the United States District Court. Chicago Title contends that it "fully complied with the subpoena... making plaintiff's motion for contempt moot." Opposition, p. 2.

Chicago Title Company has demonstrated that it complied with the subpoena when it produced true copies of the original records described in Plaintiff's subpoena. See Opposition, Exhibit 1. Plaintiff has not shown that Chicago Title Company has acted in bad faith or has otherwise engaged in conduct which would warrant holding Chicago Title Company in contempt. The Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Chicago Title Company is denied.

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Superior Court of San Diego County (Doc. # 19); (2) Motion for Court Order Clerks Entry of Default (Doc. # 21); (3) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Chicago Title Company (Doc. # 24); (4) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against San Diego Superior Court (Doc. # 26); and (5) Motion for Contempt and Seizure of Documents against Chicago Title Company (Doc. # 28) are DENIED.

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge

20090813

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.