Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV01162, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01162    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Scottsdale Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Kandela, LLC 9 (“Kandela”); Eli Gordon (“Gordon”); David Fiedler; Noteh Berger; Renee J. James; Joshua Lobel; Evan Schlessinger; Michael Sachse; WM Investment Holdings, LLC; WMIH-I, LP; KAN Funding LLC; Edidin Partners, LLC; 1P Ventures, LLC; Sharran Investments; The Entrust Group FBO Sharran Sirvatsaa IRA 7230011965; Srilo Ventures, LLC; Brian G. Johnson Defined Benefit Pension Plan; Segil Living Trust, Dated August 10, 1984, Larraine Segil Trustee; MGB Mining Defined Benefit Pension Plan; and Pescetarian Brothers, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

             Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants on January 18, 2023. The action arises from alleged fraudulent transfers and/or voidable transfers of assets—namely, Porch.Com, Inc. common unregistered stock – by Kandela in connection with Porch.Com, Inc.’s acquisition of certain Kandela assets. The currently operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleges the following causes of action: (1) actual intent fraudulent conveyance/voidable transfer; (2) constructive fraudulent conveyance/voidable transfer; (3) indemnification; (4) breach of contract as to the defendant members; (5) equitable subrogation; and (6) equitable indemnity.

            On December 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for relief from waiver of objections (the “Motion”). On January 7, 2025, Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion (the “Opposition”). On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply (the “Reply”).

DISCUSSION

            The trial court has broad discretion to grant relief from waiver of objections on a noticed motion upon determining that: (a) the moving party subsequently served discovery responses which are substantially code compliant; and (b) the moving party’s failure to timely serve responses “was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”  (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), §§ 2030.290 subd. (a), 2031.300 subd. (a), and 2033.280 subd. (a).)

            On October 22, 2024, Gordon served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set Two) and Form Interrogatories (Set Two). (Victor Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not serve responses by the November 25, 2024 deadline. (Mot. p. 2:13-15) Plaintiff states that the responses were not timely served due to an “inadvertent failure to calendar the response deadline.” (Mot. p. 8:15.) Plaintiff has not, however, subsequently served substantially code-compliant responses. (Mot. pp. 6:13-8:12.) Plaintiff asserts that it has not yet provided substantive responses because responding to the discovery requests requires Plaintiff “to include information protected by a confidentiality provision contained in a previously executed Settlement Agreement between Defendants Eli Gordon and David Fiedler on the one hand and Scottsdale’s insured Porch.com and Matthew Ehrlichman on the other hand.” (Mot. pp. 6:28-7:3; Victor Decl. ¶ 4.)  The Court finds that this is not an adequate excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond.

            The Code of Civil Procedure grants courts with discretion to relieve a party from waiver of objections upon determining that (1) the moving party has subsequently served a response and (2) “the response is in substantial compliance with the statutory provisions governing the form and content of interrogatory responses…” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CCP, §§ 2030.290 (a), 2031.300 (a), and 2033.280 (a). ) In this case, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has satisfied either of the above conditions. Thus, the Motion is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 21st day of January 2025