Family Investment Company, Inc. vs. Mach-1 Autogroup

2007-00100307 calendar relating to the bankruptcy petition filed by defendant Bruce Elieff (Defendant). Based on the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Benjamin Sosnick, filed on July 30, 2026, as ROA 3132, the stay of this matter must remain based upon the pendency of Defendant’s bankruptcy petition. The motion and the status conference therefore are CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2027, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to file a declaration regarding the status of Defendant’s bankruptcy proceeding no later than 10 court days before the continued hearing date which should include information regarding the stage of the proceedings, upcoming hearings, and any estimate regarding resolution.

Assuming the stay is lifted, the attorney fee motion likely will not proceed on the February 4, 2027, but rather will be set for a future hearing date and the possibility of further briefing, if necessary. Plaintiff’s counsel is further ordered to give notice of this ruling.

15. Family Investment Company, Inc. vs. Mach-1 Autogroup 2009-00126504 Before the court are the following two motions filed on April 17, 2026: (1) motion by judgment debtor Marc Spizzirri (Marc) to quash purported deposition subpoena on third party Glass Ratner Advisory & Capital Group, LLC (Glass Ratner); request for monetary sanctions, and (2) motion by judgment debtor Candace Spizzirri (Candace; together with Marc collectively referred to as Judgment Debtors) to quash purported deposition subpoena on third party Gnome Road Publishing (Gnome Road); request for monetary sanctions.

As more fully set forth below, both motions are GRANTED and the subpoenas served on Glass Ratner and Gnome Road are ordered QUASHED. Judgment Debtors are correct the subpoenas at issue, which are for pre-trial discovery, were not properly issued in this post-judgment context. The Civil Discovery Act applies to discovery in postjudgment enforcement proceedings only to the extent provided in Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.110 to 708.130. (Shrewsbury Mgmt., Inc. v. Superior Court (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1223.)

Under section 708.130, that includes the use of a subpoena duces tecum to access relevant documents, in the same manner as at trial. (Id. at pp. 1223-1225.) But the subpoenas at issue are not subpoenas for trial – they are for pre-trial discovery. (ROAs 2031 and 2032, at Exh. 1.) As they fail to meet the requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030, they are invalid here.