Quantcast

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Man appeals sanctions imposed in divorce proceedings involving sister

State Court
D691e8d9 8172 4d73 bde7 59eb790ac607

hammer | https://www.pexels.com/

In a recent court filing, Andrei Melnichenko has appealed an order imposing $12,866 in sanctions payable to Michael Hartman for failing to respond to a subpoena for documents. The complaint was filed by Elena Hartman in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four on May 21, 2024, against Michael Hartman.

The case stems from underlying divorce proceedings between Elena Hartman and Michael Hartman. Elena's brother, Andrei Melnichenko, was sanctioned after he failed to comply with a deposition subpoena for business records. According to court documents, the subpoena was served on Melnichenko twice—first via email at his request on March 14, 2022, and later through personal service on July 10. Despite these efforts, Melnichenko claimed he had not been served until December 26, 2022.

On January 31, 2023, following a hearing where Melnichenko opposed the motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, the trial court granted the motion and ordered him to pay attorney fees and costs as sanctions. The court found credible evidence that Melnichenko had been properly served and willfully failed to comply without good cause. A written order was entered on April 14, after which Melnichenko filed an appeal.

Melnichenko’s primary contention is that there is no substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding that he was properly served with the subpoena. He argues that his failure to comply was justified due to this lack of service and also claims that the amount of sanctions imposed is excessive. Additionally, he asserts that the process server did not confirm his identity adequately at the time of service and disputes being described accurately in the proof of service.

The trial court's decision relied heavily on a declaration from the process server who confirmed personal service on July 10 by identifying Melnichenko with assistance from photographs and a witness present at the scene. Furthermore, during an August 31 phone call with the process server, Melnichenko initially denied but later admitted receiving documents handed to him at a park.

Melnichenko also raised new arguments on appeal regarding his role as custodian of records and whether proper witness fees were tendered at service time—points not presented during trial proceedings. Consequently, these arguments were deemed forfeited under established legal principles preventing consideration of issues raised for the first time on appeal.

The plaintiffs seek enforcement of sanctions totaling $12,866 pursuant to sections 2025.480(j) and 2023.030(a) of California's Code of Civil Procedure. These statutes mandate monetary sanctions against parties who unsuccessfully oppose motions compelling answers or production unless substantial justification or other circumstances render such imposition unjust.

Representing Michael Hartman are attorneys from prominent law firms while Judge Goldman presided over this case alongside Judges Brown and Hite (the latter assigned by Chief Justice per article VI section six). The case identification number is A168024.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News