In Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —-, Cal., December 9, 2010), the California Supreme Court considered whether recipients of subpoenas from a city could appeal a trial court order compelling them to comply with the terms of the subpoena. The Court ruled that because the trial court’s order to comply with the subpoenas was a final judgment, it could be appealed to a higher court.
Facts
The City of Dana Point (“City”) issued subpoenas to five medical marijuana dispensaries demanding information about their business practices, licenses, payroll arrangements, purchasing activities, and information about its customers. The dispensaries, including the Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective, provided some of the information but refused to fully comply with the subpoenas, citing among other concerns, customer privacy. The City’s mayor sought a court order demanding compliance. The trial court found the subpoenas were properly issued and ordered the dispensaries to comply. The dispensaries appealed the order to the court of appeal, which dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order was not appealable. The dispensaries appealed that ruling to the California Supreme Court.
Decision
Code of Civil Procedure Section 904.1 lists the types of judgments and orders that are appealable. Chief among them is a “judgment that is not interlocutory,” but rather a “final” judgment. The Court added, whether the orders in this case are appealable, hinges on “whether they terminate the litigation between the parties, leaving only the issue of compliance or noncompliance.”
The Court cited City of Santa Cruz v. Patel (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 234, which involved the question of whether an order compelling compliance with a legislative subpoena to produce records for a tax compliance audit was appealable. The court in Patel found that “the superior court’s order determined all of the parties’ rights and liabilities in the proceedings; the only determination left was the question of future compliance, which is present in every judgment.” The order was therefore a “final judgment” of the court, and could therefore be appealed.
For the same reason, the trial court’s order here that the dispensaries comply with the City’s subpoenas were also a final judgment. The court added, “We have repeatedly held that judgments are final when they leave nothing to the party against whom judgment is rendered except to comply.” “The order here does exactly that. It concludes that the dispensaries must respond to the subpoena.” At no point did the order contemplate future proceedings or indicate that it is not final. “Thus, it is final for purposes of appeal,” the Court added.
In sum, the Court concluded, the trial court’s order enforcing the City’s subpoenas was a final judgment subject to appeal pursuant to Section 904.1. The orders dismissing the appeals were reversed, and the matters remanded to the court of appeal to consider the merits of the appeals.
Questions
If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.
Mona G. Ebrahimi | 916.321.4500