Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV02085, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02085    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

QUANTGENE, INC., et al.

            vs.

SEBASTIAN DONOVAN, et al.

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendants are each sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,050.00 per motion.

On 1/31/2023, Plaintiffs Sebastian Donovan and Arconex (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Quantgene, Inc. and Johannes Bhakdi (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

            On 3/3/2022, Cross-Complainants Quantgene, Inc. and Johannes Bhakdi filed a cross-complaint (XC) against Cross-Defendants Sebastian Donovan and Arconex, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) false promise; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) concealment; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) conversion; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (10) unfair business practices.

            Now, Plaintiffs move to compel Mr. Bhakdi and Quantgene (collectively, Defendants) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.5, 15.1, and 50.1, and Nos. 9.2, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.1.

            Plaintiffs also move to compel Defendants to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3, 7, and 10-13, and Nos. 9-12.

            For ease, the Court has consolidated its analysis into a single ruling.

            The motions are unopposed.

Discussion  

            Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.5, 15.1, and 50.1, and Nos. 9.2, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.1, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3, 7, and 10-13, and Nos. 9-12 are evasive, incomplete, and contain objections that are without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1),(3).)

            Defendants did not oppose these motions and thus are considered to have conceded to the merits of the motions.

            Moreover, given their lack of opposition, they have not offered any substantial justification for their failure to adequately respond to discovery.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are granted. Defendants are each sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,050.00 per motion. ($350/hr x 3 hr.)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.