Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC686084, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 9, 2024

Case Name: DONE! Ventures, LLC v. Jamgotchian, et al.

Case No.: BC674357

Matter: Motions for New Trial/JNOV (3x)

Moving Party: Defendants Jerry Jamgotchian, El Segundo Plaza Associates L.P., and 

Theta Holding IV, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Coastal Laundromat, Inc. and DONE! Ventures, LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions are denied.

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 February 7, 2023, a jury entered verdicts in favor of Plaintiffs DONE! Ventures, LLC (“Done!”) and Coastal Laundromat, Inc. (“Coastal”), and against Defendants Jerry Jamgotchian, El Segundo Plaza Associates L.P. (“ESPA”), and Theta Holding IV, Inc. (“Theta”), for Plaintiffs’ claims for interference with contract, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and breach of contract.

On May 8, 2023, the Court entered a “judgment” on the verdict.  

On July 12, 2023, the Court ruled on a motion for new trial/JNOV, stating that the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury was improper and that Coastal was either to stipulate to $525,000 or else the Court would grant a new trial only as to the amount of punitive damages.  Coastal stipulated to taking less punitive damages.

On September 5, 2023, the Court ruled on Coastal’s motion for attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest.  Prejudgment interest was rejected, but the Court awarded $357,673 in fees.

On February 6, 2024, the Court entered a final ruling denying Defendants’ motion to tax costs with respect to Done!.  That ruling also rejected prejudgment interest for Done!.  

On February 27, 2024, the Court entered an “amended judgment”, which reduced the amount of punitive damages to be obtained by Done! and indicated the amount of fees, costs, and prejudgment interest to be awarded as discussed above.  

On March 27, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ request to amend the February 27, 2024, judgment as follows: “(1) amend title of the Court’s February 27, 2024, judgment to read ‘Final Judgment’ and not its current incorrect and misleading title, ‘Amended Judgment,’ (2) Amend the date of the Court’s award of post-judgment interest from May 8, 2023 (date of the Court’s interim, non-final jury verdict judgment) to the date of final judgment, or February 27, 2024 (the date the Court signed final judgment in this case, erroneously entitled ‘Amended Judgment,’ as above), as the May 8, 2023 interim judgment is void and no longer has any force and effect by operation of law.”  The Court also denied Defendants’ request to quash  “all outstanding levies issued under the Court’s interim - and now void and unenforceable - May 8, 2023 jury verdict judgment.”  

Defendants now each bring a new Motion for New Trial or Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.  Defendants claim they can bring a new round of post-trial motions based on the already rejected argument that the May 8, 2023, judgment was not final such that the February 27, 2024, judgment triggered new rights.

There is nothing that substantively occurred between the May 8, 2023, and February 27, 2024, judgments, other than the reduction of punitive damages, which was already an issue for the prior motion for new trial.  Therefore, the current Motions are improper motions for reconsideration that fail to explain why the arguments therein could not have been raised at an earlier time.

Thus, the Motions are denied.

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.