Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

KENDALL CAPPS,

Plaintiff,

JULIEN ENTERTAINMENT.COM, INC. dba JULIEN’S AuCTIONS; JASON DEBORD; DARREN C. JULIEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV32415

Hearing Date: January 3, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

court’s own motion for reconsideration of the november 27, 2023 order

Procedural Background

On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff Kendall Capps (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant wrongful termination action against Defendants Julien Entertainment.com, Inc. dba Julien’s Auctions (“Auctions”), Jason DeBord (“DeBord”), and Darren C. Julien (“Julien”) (collectively “Defendants”). The complaint asserts seven causes of action for (1) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks, (3) Failure to Pay Wages, (4) Failure to Pay Overtime, (5) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, and (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment naming Martin J. Nolan as Doe 1.

On November 27, 2023, the Court granted – in part – Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Auctions’ further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”). (Order 11/27/23.) On December 4, 2023, the Court granted – in part – Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant DeBord’s further responses to the SROGs. (Order 12/4/23.)

Based on the reasoning in the December 4, 2023 Order, the Court noted that it was inclined to modify its November 27, 2023 Order to GRANT IN PART Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant Auctions’ further response to SROG No. 63 as limited to the name and address of Plaintiff's replacement. (Minute Order 12/4/23.) Accordingly, the Court set the instant motion for reconsideration of its November 27, 2023 Order with any opposition to be filed by December 18, 2023. (Minute Order 12/4/23.)

On December 7, 2023, Defendants filed a request for clarification of the December 4, 2023 Minute Order. On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ request for clarification and a request for the Court’s motion for reconsideration to also include monetary sanctions against Defendant Auctions. On December 22, 2023, Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff’s opposition and request for the Court’s motion for reconsideration to also include monetary sanctions against Defendant Auctions.

Legal Standard

The court may reconsider an interim order previously issued on its own motion, but any written submission that the court do so by a party must comport with either section 437c(f)(2) or 1008(c). (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107-1108.) If the court wishes to reconsider on its own motion, “it should inform the parties of this concern, solicit briefing, and hold a hearing.” (Id. at p.1108.) The responding party does not bear the burden of opposition unless the court indicates an interest in reconsideration. (Ibid.)

Discussion

As noted above, based on the reasoning in the December 4, 2023 Order as to the SROGs propounded by Plaintiff on DeBord, the Court is inclined to modify its order as to SROG No. 63 propounded on Auctions. The Court has informed the parties of the concern and solicited briefing. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108.) No party has opposed. Rather, Defendant Auctions requests clarification as to the timing of compliance with the November 27, 2023 Order, and Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the requests for sanctions.

The Court did not specify in its Order for Reconsideration that it was reconsidering the timing of Defendant Auctions’ compliance to provided further responses to SROGs No. 42, 42(2), 43, 64, and 69. Nor did Defendant Auctions bring any ex parte application to seek clarification. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Defendant Auctions to provide further responses as specified in the instant within two days of the hearing on the instant motion for reconsideration, i.e., no later than January 5, 2024.

As to Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of sanctions in the November 27, 2023 Order, the request is denied. The Court did not indicate in its notice that it was inclined to reconsider the denial of sanctions. In any event, the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion is still mixed as each request was overbroad and was limited in scope by the Court. Thus, the imposition of sanctions based on Defendant Auctions’ response to the SROGs at issue would be unjust under the circumstances.

As no party has opposed the instant motion, the Court grants its own motion for reconsideration. The November 27, 2023 Order is modified as follows:

Defendant Julien Entertainment.com, Inc. dba Julien’s Auctions is to provide further, code compliant, verified responses without objection as to Special Interrogatories No. 42, 42(2), and 43 as limited to describing Plaintiff’s role in auctioning, assessing prospective items, and tracking auction items and those portions of auction processes, assessment of prospective items, and tracking auction items in which Plaintiff participated and with which Plaintiff was involved during his time working with Defendants; Special Interrogatory No. 63 as limited to Plaintiff’s replacement’s name and address; Special Interrogatory No. 64 as temporarily limited to alleged defamatory statements made against Defendants between March 8, 2021 and October 7, 2021, and Special Interrogatory No. 69 as limited to auctions with which Plaintiff was involved, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The remainder of the November 27, 2023 Order is unchanged. Defendant Julien Entertainment.com, Inc. dba Julien’s Auctions must comply within two days of notice of the instant order granting the Court’s own motion for reconsideration.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court’s own motion for reconsideration of its November 27, 2023 Order is GRANTED. The November 27, 2023 Order is modified as follows:

The remainder of the November 27, 2023 Order is unchanged except that Defendant Julien Entertainment.com, Inc. dba Julien’s Auctions must comply with the order no later than January 5, 2024.

Moving party is to give notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED: January ___, 2024 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court