Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01047/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01047-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

640 OCTAVIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KARL-HEINZ PIEPER,

Defendant. /

No. C 18-01047 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO COMPEL AS MOOT

AND VACATING HEARING

Plaintiff 640 Octavia, LLC, the owner of a four-unit residential building in San

Francisco, initiated this action against defendant Karl-Heinz Pieper in February 2018. Based on

allegations that defendant frequently had unruly visitors over to his apartment, the complaint

asserted claims for unlawful detainer, breach of contract, and private nuisance. In October

2018, plaintiff served a subpoena on Jose Montoya, defendant’s roommate and a non-party to

this action. The compliance due date was November 8, 2018. After Montoya failed to respond,

plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce the subpoena and for contempt. Apart from the

instant motion, plaintiff made no attempt to elicit a response to the subpoena or otherwise

inquire into Montoya’s non-compliance (Dkt. Nos. 1, 78, 80).

Upon plaintiff’s filing of the instant motion, defendant and Montoya met and conferred

with plaintiff and complied with the terms of the subpoena by serving objections and responsive

documents. In its reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges that Montoya has responded to the

subpoena. Although plaintiff no longer seeks enforcement of the subpoena, it argues that it

should recover the fees and costs incurred in bringing the instant motion (Dkt. Nos. 80–81). 

This order disagrees. Imposing attorney’s fees on Montoya would be inappropriate given that

the amount plaintiff expended on the instant motion could have been avoided had plaintiff made

Case 3:18-cv-01047-WHA Document 84 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

an attempt to communicate with Montoya or otherwise meet and confer. Each side shall

therefore bear its own costs and fees related to the instant motion. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce

the subpoena is otherwise DENIED AS MOOT. The January 17 hearing on the motion is

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-01047-WHA Document 84 Filed 01/02/19 Page 2 of 2