Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV21501, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21501    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Friday, March 10, 2023

Case Name:                             Exclusive Caregivers of California, Inc. v.

                                                Wildflower Brands, Inc. et al.

Case No.:                                22STCV21501

Motion:                                   Demurrer to Complaint

                                                Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party:                         Defendants Wildflower Brands, Inc., WMI Consulting, Ltd., Stephen Pearce, and William Maclean, joined by Eaze Technologies, Inc.

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff Exclusive Caregivers of California, Inc.

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                   The Motion is continued.

                                                Moving parties to give notice.

                                                If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            Defendants Wildflower Brands, Inc., WMI Consulting Ltd., Stephen Pearce, and William Maclean, joined by Defendant Eaze Technologies, Inc., seek terminating sanctions, as well as monetary sanctions in the amount of $18,832.50 against Plaintiff and its counsel. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7.) Defendant contend this action is frivolous because it is barred by res judicata and suffers from pleading defects. Defendant have also demurred to the first, third, fifth, and seventh through fourteenth causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint.

            Defendants’ motion for sanctions first came before the Court on January 6, 2023. (Their demurrer is now before the Court for the first time.) On January 6, the Court observed that Plaintiff had filed a notice of related case in this Department as to Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 19STCV32522, but had not filed a notice of related case therein, and therefore the Department with possible “lead” jurisdiction over this matter had yet to rule on whether the cases should be related. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of related case in case no. 19STCV32522 and continued the Motion until a ruling was rendered on the notice in that case.

            The Court notes that the parties have filed notices of related case in case no. 19STCV32522, but no ruling has yet been rendered on those notices. Therefore this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, again continues the Motion and Demurrer until a ruling is rendered on the notices in case number 19STCV32522.

            Moving parties to give notice.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.