Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Youssif Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC (2023-12-21) — remanded — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to quash twelve subpoenas served on third parties in a civil action pending in the Southern District of California. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the subpoenas were not issued in the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Quash (ECF No. 44) is denied without prejudice.“Thus, defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate districts.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A), which vests jurisdiction to quash or modify subpoenas in the district where compliance is required. The order recites that none of the subpoenas were issued in the Southern District of California and that the district is not where compliance is required. Therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion. Denying the motion without prejudice is the procedurally correct outcome to allow the defendants to seek relief in the proper forum. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional limitation imposed by Rule 45(d)(3)(A) and cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent (CMKM Diamonds) to support the proposition that the court where the underlying action is pending lacks authority to quash subpoenas issued elsewhere. The conclusion that the court lacks jurisdiction follows directly from the facts recited (subpoenas not issued in S.D. Cal. and not the district where compliance is required).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 || Youssif KAMAL, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1298-BAS-AGS 11 Plaintiffs,| ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 12 MOTION TO QUASH (ECF No. 44) 13 |} EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants move to quash twelve subpoenas that plaintiffs have served on third 17 || parties. (ECF No. 44-1, at 4.) But only “the issuing court, and not the court where the 18 |/underlying action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or modify 19 subpoenas under [Rule 45].” S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 20 ||2011). None of these subpoenas were issued in the Southern District of California. (See 21 No. 44-5, at 3.) Because this district is not “the district where compliance is required,” 22 Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). 23 Thus, defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled in the 24 || appropriate districts. 25 ||Dated: February 12, 2020 26 < | / 07 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge
Cites, in this corpus
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. 10-16384 · 2011-08-26