Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Filing of Writ Petition in Sacramento Doesn’t Bar San Francisco Order to Obey Subpoenas
Justices Say Doctrine of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction Doesn’t Apply
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal has declared that a writ petition filed in Sacramento Superior Court by a manufacturer of commercial electric vehicles, contesting a government agency’s action in suspending it from a program under which purchases of its products were partially subsidized by the state, does not bar issuance of administrative subpoenas in connection with the controversy in a later-filed San Francisco proceeding.
The opinion holds that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, under which the first court to gain jurisdiction over a dispute holds onto it to the exclusion of others judicial bodies, does not apply.
Justice Jeremy M. Goldman authored the opinion, filed Monday. He found that San Francisco Superior Court Judge John-Paul S. Deol appropriately granted a petition filed by the People to compel compliance with subpoenas issued by the Attorney General’s Office to GreenPower Motor Company Inc., which manufactures electric commuter shuttles and school buses.
Also upheld were subpoenas to GreenPower’s subsidiary, San Joaquin Valley Equipment Leasing, Inc., which leases the vehicles.
The petition filed by GreenPower in Sacramento challenges an action by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) in suspending the vehicle-making from the state’s Hybrid and Zero-Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (“HVIP”) under which purchases of electronic vehicles (“Evs”) are subsidized, up to $100,000. In San Francisco, the Office of Attorney General is investigating whether GreenPower has acted in compliance with the HVIP and if it has committed corporate fraud.
Goldman’s Opinion
Goldman wrote:
“Although the Sacramento action and the present proceeding both generally involve the same subject matter—HVIP program requirements—the specific issue raised in the present proceeding is factually and legally distinct from the issues involved in the Sacramento action. In the Sacramento action, GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing seek to compel CARB under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to ‘issue vouchers for electric vehicles...produced and distributed by GreenPower in full compliance with all (applicable terms and conditions of the HVIP.’ They argue that CARB has a ministerial duty to issue vouchers for eligible EVs and that CARB acted arbitrarily in suspending GreenPower from the program.”
The justice continued:
“By contrast, the present proceeding is a limited special proceeding to enforce administrative subpoenas under section 11188….Insofar as the sole issue presented in this proceeding is the validity of the subpoenas, an issue not subject to determination in the Sacramento action, there is no risk of contradictory rulings and the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is not applicable.”
GreenPower asserted in its opening brief on appeal:
“The subpoenas are sweeping in their scope. They seek 20 categories of documents, broadly including ‘all documents relating to HVIP’; ‘all communications’ and ‘all contracts and agreements’ with 13 companies and entities; all documents relating to leased EVs for which vouchers were redeemed or received; all documents relating to EV finishing, delivery, or storage; all documents relating to the VIN of any EV ever sold, including communications with private entities and federal or state regulators; and all of Appellants’ ‘corporate documents.’” A subsequent subpoena broadened the scope even more, it complained, noting “that the number of documents responsive to just one of the State’s demands was likely to be nearly 325,000 pages.:
Goldman said:
“On this record, we cannot conclude that the subpoena as a whole, which seeks production of definite and relevant, if perhaps voluminous, documents is excessive or overly burdensome. While the approximately seven-year period selected by the Attorney General, as compared to the three-year period suggested by appellants on appeal, undoubtedly enlarged the number of responsive documents, GreenPower has not argued that any documents are unavailable.”
The case is People ex rel. Bonta v. Greenpower Motor Co., Inc., 2025 S.O.S. 2137.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company