Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCP00272, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 16, 2024

Case Name: Simmons Unlimited, LLC v. Izydorczyk, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV43407 

Matter: (1) Motions to Quash Subpoenas (2x)

(2) Motions to Seal (2x)

Moving Party: (1) Dejanee Riley Izydorczyk, Gabriella McNeill, and Deja Riley 

Athletics, LLC

(2) Simmons Unlimited, LLC and Imani Simmons

Responding Party: (1) Simmons Unlimited, LLC and Imani Simmons

(2) Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions to Quash are denied.

The Motions to Seal are granted.

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. 

On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff Simmons Unlimited, LLC filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Dejanee Riley Izydorczyk (“Riley”), Gabriella McNeill, and Deja Riley Athletics, LLC (“DRA”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) fraud—intentional misrepresentation, (4) fraud—negligent misrepresentation, (5) intentional interference with contract, (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (7) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, (8) unjust enrichment, (9) accounting, (10) constructive trust, and (11) declaratory relief.  

The allegations of the Complaint are as follows.  Plaintiff is a brand manager who entered into an agreement to provide services for Defendant Riley, who is a fitness celebrity.  Plaintiff was able to bring together a long-term, six-figure brand partnership with Lululemon/Mirror.  Immediately before this deal closed, Defendant Riley wrongfully terminated the subject management agreement with Plaintiff and declined to pay any commissions resulting from the Lululemon/Mirror deal.  Defendant Gabriella McNeill is a friend of Riley and worked as her “managing director”, although she had virtually no experience in the industry.  McNeill excluded Plaintiff from various communications with Lululemon/Mirror and ultimately sought to terminate Plaintiff’s relationship with Riley.  DRA is Riley’s loan-out company and alter ego.  DRA was ultimately used to circumvent payment of commissions to Plaintiff. 

On February 24, 2023, Riley filed a Third Amended Cross-Complaint (“TACC”) for (1) intentional misrepresentation and (2) negligent misrepresentation.  Riley alleges that Cross-Defendants Simmons Unlimited, LLC and Imani Simmons made the following misrepresentations, which caused Riley to enter into a management agreement with Cross-Defendants: 

a. On August 11, 2020, at an initial meeting between Cross-Complainant and CrossDefendants, which began on a hike at Griffith Park in Los Angeles, California, continued at Toast Bakery Café in Los Angeles, California, and ended at a hotel in Los Angeles, California, Imani Simmons repeatedly represented to Cross-Complainant verbally that Cross-Defendants had personally worked with and personally managed multiple “big name” brands and talent including, but not limited to, Jagermeister, Puma, and Lady Footlocker, and “big name” musical artists and further represented to Cross-Complainant verbally that Cross-Defendants had personally secured large deals for them; 

b. On August 11, 2020 and in early September 2020, at Toast Bakery Café in Los Angeles, California and at Chao Krung Thai restaurant in Los Angeles, California, where meetings took place between Cross-Defendants and Riley, Imani Simmons also represented to Cross-Complainant verbally that Cross-Defendants personally had connections to secure large deals for Cross-Complainant and were working on a deal with Jagermeister for Cross-Complainant amidst other deals, such as with Puma and Lady Footlocker, for Cross-Complainant; 

c. On August 11, 2020, at the initial meeting between Cross-Complainant and CrossDefendants, which began on a hike at Griffith Park in Los Angeles, California, continued at Toast Bakery Cafe in Los Angeles, California, and ended at a hotel in Los Angeles, California, Imani Simmons further represented to Cross-Complainant that Ms. Simmons and Simmons Unlimited was an established and experienced brand manager with “several clients.”

1. Motions to Quash Subpoenas

Defendants now bring two Motions to Quash Subpoenas.  One Motion is directed at a business record subpoena issued to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the other Motion is directed at subpoenas issued to (a) Curiouser Products, Inc. and (b) Lululemon USA Inc.  Defendants argue that the subpoenas are overbroad relative to Plaintiff’s claims. 

The subpoenas at issue seek financial documents relating to Defendants.  

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 authorizes courts to quash a subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon the court’s own terms and conditions, including protective orders. In addition, the court may take other appropriate means to protect parties or nonparties “from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)  Discovery devices are meant to facilitate litigation, not wage it.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.)

The Motions are denied because these subpoenas seek relevant information as to commissions and damages for Plaintiff’s claims.  The Court declines to award sanctions.

The objections are overruled.  The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.

2. Motions to Seal 

Simmons Unlimited, LLC and Imani Simmons seek to seal Exhibits F-J of the Declarations of Jordan Matthews for their motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication because these exhibits “contain highly sensitive and extensively detailed information about Cross-Defendants’ business dealings with Mast-Jagermeister [ ] in addition to the parties’ respective business dealings with Lululemon and Curiouser Products, Inc.”

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to public review.  (Cal. Rules of Court 2.550(c); see also Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1) [“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business”].)  “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); see also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)

The Motions to Seal are granted because the subject exhibits contain sensitive business information subject to a protective order, which supports a sealing order; there could be injury to the parties if their business dealings were disclosed; the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to the extent only dealing with five exhibits, three of which do not even directly relate to this lawsuit; and no less restrictive means exist to protect the subject exhibits.

All sealed exhibits are to be emailed to the Court’s research attorney at cmoslemi@lacourt.org.  

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.