Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC704545, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 18, 2023

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

Case No.: BC674357

Matter: Motion to Vacate Judgment or obtain New Trial 

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

Theta Holding IV, Inc.

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

Ruling: The Motion is 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 July 12, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for new trial or JNOV.   As relevant here, Defendants argued that “Plaintiffs suppressed a critical piece of evidence until just before trial. The email in question- Exhibit 115 - strikes at the heart of the premises that underlie Plaintiffs' case. Exhibit 115 reveals that Mr. Padnos offered to purchase Coastal's stock for $2.1 million to circumvent the need for ESPA's consent. This email disproves, among other positions advanced by Plaintiffs, that (i) Coastal would have sold to Done but for ESPA's interference; (ii) Done would have paid $2.8 million to buy the laundromat and (iii) ESPA ‘killed’ the market for the laundromat. . . . “

The Court ruled that “[w]ith respect to Exhibit 115, the jury was able to consider this email; there was questioning at trial about this email; and there were depositions taken about this exhibit.  Ultimately, the Court cannot find that Defendants were significantly prejudiced by the fact that they received this exhibit shortly before trial.”

Defendants again seek to vacate the judgment or obtain a new trial based on Exhibit 115.  Defendants claim extrinsic fraud or mistake and contend that “serving as new and independent grounds for both the instant Motion as well as allowed reconsideration of the Court's former denial of Defendants' Motion for New Trial, Mr. Hix recently filed with the Court his billing statements in support of Coastal's attorney fees motion (Exhibit 1 hereto). These newly produced and highly relevant billing statements, which were only made available as of July 26, 2023, provide new, detailed confirmation that Mr. Hix, despite claiming ignorance, was fully aware that Exhibit 115 existed long before the trial took place since at least January of 2022, and was actively involved in the preparation of Plaintiffs' joint trial binders with Mr. Kristensen in which Exhibit 115 was secretly inserted. Additionally, Mr. Hix's billing records also show that he took the lead on the Trial Exhibit preparation project with at least 16 separate billing entries relating to Plaintiffs' ‘exhibit list,’ including exhibit and trial strategy meetings with Mr. Kristensen during this period). This new evidence, coupled with other existing badges of fraud, proves actual fraud by Plaintiffs' counsel by that legal standard.”

There is little in the way of “new” evidence that could not have been presented before.  Respectfully, the “new” evidence merely shows Hix worked on the exhibit list since January 2022.  There is little indicating intentional fraud by counsel.  Even if Plaintiffs’ counsel were negligent, the Court has already found that the prejudice stemming from the late provision of Exhibit 115 is not sufficient to warrant a new trial.

The Motion is 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.