Ensoniq Corp. v. Superior Court

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 712·65 Cal. App. 4th 1537·77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507·98 Daily Journal DAR 8833·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6387
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 14, 1998No. H016861California6,115 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cottle, J.

I. Introduction

This matter arises from the competing claims of petitioner Ensoniq Corporation (hereafter, Ensoniq) and its former employee, real party in interest Jon Dattoro (hereafter, Dattoro) to intellectual property which Dattoro brought to California when he left his employment with Ensoniq. Ensoniq contacted the district attorney, who obtained a search warrant and seized the disputed property from Dattoro’s residence. However, the district attorney decided not to prosecute Dattoro, who then brought a motion for return of the seized property.

Ensoniq now seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent superior court to vacate its order setting forth the procedure for the hearing on Dattoro’s motion for return of property seized under search warrant. In its order, the superior court ruled that Ensoniq has no standing to participate in the hearing, and permitted only the district attorney to present evidence that Ensoniq is the rightful owner of the seized property.

We hold that the superior court properly determined that, under the circumstances of this case, Ensoniq is a third party with no standing under the Penal Code to apply for delivery of the seized property…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.