Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court
51 Cal. 4th 1
| Cal. | 2010Background
- City of Dana Point issued legislative subpoenas under Gov. Code § 37104 to five medical marijuana dispensaries for records related to licenses, payroll, purchasing, and members.
- Dispensaries objected to production; some responses were partial and discussions occurred over protective orders.
- Mayor reported noncompliance to the superior court; the court held a hearing and issued a single Final Ruling enforcing subpoenas with a protective order.
- Dispensaries each appealed; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals as non-appealable, creating a split about appealability.
- California Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a trial court order enforcing a legislative subpoena is an appealable final judgment.
- The Court held that such compliance orders are appealable final judgments under CCP § 904.1(a)(1) and reversed to remand for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are compliance orders enforcing legislative subpoenas appealable? | Dispensaries argued not appealable under prior nonfinality cases. | City urged nonfinality to prevent piecemeal appeals and preserve investigation. | Yes, such orders are final judgments and appealable. |
| Does finality doctrine apply similarly to administrative subpoenas and legislative subpoenas? | Patel/Pet Food express analogies favor finality for subpoenas in special proceedings. | Bishop restrained finality reasoning; subpoenas may be nonfinal until contempt. | Finality applies; orders enforcing subpoenas are appealable final judgments. |
| Do prior cases like Bishop v. Merging Capital control this issue? | Bishop suggested not appealable because no adverse consequence yet. | Patel, Pet Food Express, and U.S. Financial Management conflict with Bishop. | Bishop is disapproved to the extent inconsistent with Patel/Pet Food Express/U.S. Financial Management; subpoenas' compliance orders are appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. City of Richmond, 10 Cal.4th 85 (1995) (defines statutory right to appeal and finality framework)
- Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, 15 Cal.4th 288 (1997) (finality concept for judgments)
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (2001) (finality test and oppression of piecemeal appeals)
- Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc., 43 Cal.3d 696 (1987) (finality standards for judgments and related procedures)
- Patel, City of Santa Cruz v., 155 Cal.App.4th 234 (2007) (legislative subpoenas are appealable final judgments)
- Pet Food Express, 165 Cal.App.4th 841 (2008) (administrative subpoenas: compliance orders are final judgments)
- U.S. Financial Management, Inc., 169 Cal.App.4th 1502 (2009) (compliance with administrative subpoenas constitutes a final judgment)
- Arnett v. Dal Cielo, 14 Cal.4th 4 (1996) (subpoena for administrative investigation distinguished from discovery)
- Bishop v. Merging Capital, Inc., 49 Cal.App.4th 1803 (1996) (held subpoenas not appealable; disapproved in light of Patel/Pet Food Express)
- Barnes v. Molino, 103 Cal.App.3d 46 (1980) (administrative subpoenas not automatically appealable)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.App.3d 274 (1980) (subpoenas and enforcement contexts in tax/administrative matters)
- Patel (City of Santa Cruz) v. City, 155 Cal.App.4th 234 (2007) (finality of compliance orders under CCP 904.1(a)(1))