Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21GDCV01353, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 21GDCV01353 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

ANDREW BERGMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

ISAAC BLOCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 21GDCV01353

Hearing Date: March 1, 2024

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs Andrew Bergman, Andrew Bondarczuk, Edward Bondarczuk, Matthew Bondarczuk, Steve Bondarczuk, Cain Hernandez, Joshua Miller, Aaron Mullenix, Christopher Nuesa, Jane Park, William Marc Salsberry, Trevor Schmidt, Aaron Stogner, Brian Walters, and Carlos Zoller (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendant Isaac Blocher, Kristie Blocher, Aneaka English, Blocher Holdings LLC, Consortium Title, LLC, Wholesale Listings Ltd. Co., LLC, Wholesale Real Estate, LLC, WSRE South Carolina, LLC aka WSRE S. Carolina, LLC, WSRE Georgia, LLC, Selling N. Atlanta, LLC, Selling Real Estate, LLC, Selling N. Charleston, LLC, Selling N. Richmond, LLC, WSRE Florida, LLC, and E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. Shepherds, LLC is named as a nominal defendant.

Plaintiffs allege that they are members and investors of Shepherds LLC. Isaac and Kristie Blocher are alleged to be the members of Blocher Holdings LLC (now dissolved) and Blocher Holdings LLC served as the manager for Shepherds LLC. Isaac Blocher is also alleged to be the manager of Shepherds LLC.

Plaintiffs allege that Isaac Blocher made false promises to Plaintiffs to induce their investment into Shepherds LLC, such as promising he would generate income for Plaintiffs, be a professional investment mortgage broker and private lender, be a good steward to Plaintiffs’ investment, etc. (SAC, ¶42.) In reliance on Isaac Blocher’s representations, Plaintiffs invested a total of $2,437,488 into Shepherds LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Isaac Blocher invested nearly all of Plaintiffs’ funds with Aneaka English and transferred nearly $2.1 million from the company’ bank account into Aneaka English’s bank account. Plaintiffs allege that Aneaka English subsequently stole the money. Plaintiffs allege that this and other conduct by Isaac Blocher amounted to grossly negligence and/or reckless investing and behavior.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed September 5, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty – count one – direct cause of action; (2) breach of fiduciary duty – count two – derivative cause of action; (3) conversion – count one – direct cause of action; (4) conversion – count two – derivative cause of action; (5) fraud – count one – direct cause of action; (6) negligence – count one – direct cause of action; (7) negligence – count two – derivative cause of action; (8) breach of written contract – count one – direct cause of action; (9) breach of written contract – count two – derivative cause of action; (10) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing – direct cause of action; (11) violation of Bus. & Profs. Code, §§ 17200 et seq. – count one – direct cause of action; (12) violation of Bus. & Profs. Code, §§ 17200 et seq. – count two – derivative cause of action; (13) accounting – count one – direct cause of action; and (14) accounting – count two – derivative cause of action.

B. Cross-Complaint

On October 20, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Aneaka English aka Aneaka Ukah, Selling N. Atlanta, LLC, Selling N. Charleston, LLC, Selling N. Richmond, LLC, WSRE Florida, LLC, WSRE Georgia, LLC, and WSRE South Carolina LLC (“Cross-Complainants”) filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Andrew Bergman, Andrew Bondarczuk, Edward Bondarczuk, Matthew Bondarczuk, Steve Bondarczuk, Cain Hernandez, Joshua Miller, Aaron Mullenix, Christopher Nuesa, Jane Park, William Marc Salsberry, Trevor Schmidt, Aaron Stogner, Brian Walters, Carlos Zoller, Isaac Blocher, Kristie Blocher, Blocher Holdings, LLC, and Shepherds, LLC. The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) accounting; (2) declaratory relief; (3) violation of Business & Professions Code, § 17200 et seq.; and (4) interpleader.

On February 16, 2024, the Court sustained without leave to amend Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to and granted without leave to amend the motion to strike the cross-complaint filed on October 20, 2023. That same day, the Court dismissed without prejudice the cross-complaint.

C. Motion on Calendar

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiffs Andrew Bergman, Andrew Bondarczuk, Edward Bondarczuk, Matthew Bondarczuk, Steve Bondarczuk, Cain Hernandez, Joshua Miller, Aaron Mullenix, Christopher Nuesa, Jane Park, William Marc Salsberry, Trevor Schmidt, Aaron Stogner, Brian Walters, and Carlos Zoller (hereinafter, “Moving Parties”) filed a motion to compel Defendant Aneaka English’s (“English”) further responses to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”).

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

Moving Parties move to compel English’s further responses to RPD Nos. 1-64.

RPD Nos. 1-20 seek bank account statements, credit card statements, cancelled checks, deposits, wire transfers, and profit and loss statements from English and the affiliated entities. The affiliated entities are defined in the RPDs to include WSRE Florida, LLC, WSRE Georgia, LLC, Selling N. Atlanta, LLC, Selling N. Charleston, LLC, WSRE South Carolina, LLC, Selling N. Richmond, LLC, ES Real Estate Consortium, E.S. Realty Group, LLC, and Wholesale Real Estate, LLC. RPD Nos. 21-25, 34-44, 46-53, and 60-64 seek corporate information of the affiliated entities (i.e., share certificates, minutes of meetings, statement of information, federal tax returns, articles of organization, communication between members, lists of shareholders and officers, other companies/partnerships that English and the affiliated entities are members/shareholders, etc.). RPD Nos. 26-33 and 45 seek telephone record information, lease information/applications, payroll information, corporate offices, etc. from English and the affiliated entities. RPD Nos. 54-59 seek all contracts between the parties.

For the most part, English objected to the RPDs that they sought irrelevant information, were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, they were overbroad as to time/scope, they were unduly burdensome and oppressive, and the RPDs seek privileged and confidential information that is a trade secret, financial information, or private. Where such general “boilerplate” objections are made, this Court has the authority to order a further response. (See Best Prods., Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189.) Moving Parties argue that RPDs are necessary to ascertain whether English and the affiliated entities are alter egos of the other. Thus, they seek information about English and the affiliated entities’ finances, corporate meetings, communications, affiliation with other entities, etc.

Once the moving party has shown good cause for production, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify its objections. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) As the motion is unopposed, English has not provided any justification for the objections or the claims of privilege. As such, the objections are overruled.

Finally, Moving Parties argue that English served untimely responses on October 24, 2023, when responses were due by October 23, 2023 (based on the parties’ agreed-upon deadline). This is another reason to grant the motion as English has not moved for a relief from waiver of objections.

For these reasons, the motion to compel further responses is granted.

Moving Parties seek $8,902.50 against English and her counsel of record in monetary sanctions (= 3.4 hours to prepare meet and confer letter + 0.1 hour to meet and confer with opposing counsel + 0.5 hours to meet and confer telephonically + 4.5 hours to prepare the motion + 5 anticipated hours to draft a reply and attend the hearing, at $655/hour, plus $60 in filing fees). English is now a self-represented litigant. It does not appear that any efforts were made to meet and confer with English after her counsel was relieved. At this time, the Court will award reduced sanctions against English in the amount of $2,000, plus $60 in filing fees. If English continues to delay compliance with her discovery obligations, the Court may impose sanctions on future motions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Aneaka English is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,060 to Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.