Custom Cabs, Inc. v. Jada Builders Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved for an Order to Show Cause against a third party, Bank of America, for prospective failure to comply with a subpoena. The court denied the motion without prejudice as premature and lacking a basis to establish the court's jurisdiction under Rule 45(g).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion for Order to Show Cause Denied“The joint motion is DENIED without prejudice as premature and for lacking basis to show this Court has jurisdiction to issue such an Order.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that Rule 45(g) grants jurisdiction to the court for the district where compliance is required. Because the parties failed to provide the subpoena, the court could not determine if this district was the proper venue for compliance. Additionally, the motion sought sanctions for 'prospective' failure, but the record showed the third party had agreed to produce documents by a future date (November 10, 2020), which had not yet passed. Denying the motion as premature and without prejudice is the appropriate procedural response to a motion filed before the deadline for compliance has expired and without establishing jurisdictional facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the jurisdictional requirement of Rule 45(g) and notes the failure to provide the subpoena necessary to establish that jurisdiction. It also correctly identifies the motion as premature because the deadline for compliance had not yet passed. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the deficiencies in the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CUSTOM CABS, INC., Case No.: 19-CV-1376-DMS(WVG)
13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 14 v. FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 15 JADA BUILDERS INC., [Doc. No. 38.] 16 Defendant. 17 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 18 19 20 The parties jointly move—presumably under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 45(g)—for an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not issue against third-party 22 Bank of America for its prospective failure to produce documents in response to a 23 subpoena. The joint motion is DENIED without prejudice as premature and for lacking 24 basis to show this Court has jurisdiction to issue such an Order. 25 Rule 45(g) permits “[t]he court for the district where compliance is required” to 26 “hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey 27 the subpoena or an order related to it.” The key phrase in this Rule for the Court’s purposes 28 here is “where compliance is required.” Among other things, the parties must demonstrate 1 || that the Court has jurisdiction under Rule 45(g). See Short v. United States, No. 18CV74- 2 ||DCN, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185650, at *6 (D. Idaho Oct. 23, 2019); Montgomery v. 3 || Risen, No. 15CV2035-AJB(JLB), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182623, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 4 ||2015). However, the parties have not provided the Court a copy of the subpoena. Doing so 5 || would provide the Court some basis to evaluate the propriety of the motion in this District. 6 || The Court presently has no basis to determine its jurisdiction to issue the requested Order. 7 Additionally, the exhibit attached to the joint motion demonstrates that Bank of 8 || America has indicated it will produce documents by November 10, 2020, an “extension 9 || date” the bank identified. Given that this date has not yet passed, Bank of America may yet 10 || produce the subpoenaed documents, which renders the parties’ current request premature. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: November 6, 2020 13 | | Se Hon. William V. Gallo 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28