Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00949/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00949-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 08cv949 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BURK N. ASHFORD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv949 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

GOEPPINGER-CURRAN

DEVELOPMENT, LLC; et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

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

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WQH-RBB Document 29 Filed 08/13/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 08cv949 WQH (RBB)

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. 

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WQH-RBB Document 29 Filed 08/13/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 08cv949 WQH (RBB)

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. 

DATED: August 13, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WQH-RBB Document 29 Filed 08/13/09 Page 3 of 3