Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00016, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 22CHCV00016 Hearing Date: April 8, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/8/24
Case #22CHCV00016
MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Form
Interrogatories, Set 1)
Motion filed on 11/8/23.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant JW Brands LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Martin Willerford
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The request to compel responses, without
objections, is granted. The request for
sanctions is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of an agreement between Defendant
024 Management Services, Inc. (024 Management), Defendant JW Brands LLC (JW
Brands) and Plaintiffs Chris Lacroix (Lacroix) and Martin Willerford
(Willerford) (collectively, Plaintiffs).
(Complaint, Ex.A). Plaintiffs
allege that in or about 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered a written
agreement whereby Defendants hired Plaintiffs to operate a division of its
business, Plaintiffs would provide services, pricing and terms, and Defendants
would pay for said products. (Complaint
¶6, p.3). Plaintiffs further allege that
they provided a loan of startup capital to Defendants. (Id. and Ex.A thereto). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached
the agreement by preventing Plaintiffs from providing services and refusing to
return the startup loan funds. (Complaint
¶12, p.4).
On 5/30/23, JW Brands served Form Interrogatories, Set 1,
on Willerford making responses due on 7/3/23.
(Bowen Decl.). On 7/18/23, JW
Brands contacted Willerford because no responses had been received and was
advised that responses had been sent. Id. Since JW Brands had not received the
responses, counsel requested that they be re-sent. Id.
No responses were sent; therefore, JW Brands followed-up on 7/26/23 and
was told that Willerford had mistaken the discovery requests for a prior
request and indicated responses would be served. Id.
Despite two more inquiries, Willerford failed to serve responses to the
discovery. Id.
Therefore, on 11/8/23, JW Brands filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order compelling
Willerford to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections,
to Form Interrogatories, Set 1.
Additionally, JW Brands requests an order imposing sanctions against
Willerford and in favor of JW Brands in the amount of $1,660.00. No opposition or other response to the motion
has been filed. The Court notes that Willerford’s attorney
has a motion to be relieved as counsel scheduled for hearing on 6/12/24 which is
based on lack of communication from Willerford.
ANALYSIS
Due to Willerford’s failure to serve timely responses to
the Form Interrogatories, JW Brands is entitled to an order compelling
responses without objection. CCP
2030.290(a), (b).
While the Court believes that sanctions against
Willerford and Willerford’s counsel are warranted due to their failure to
comply with their discovery obligations, JW Brands has failed to provide proper
notice regarding against whom the sanctions are sought. See CCP 2023.040. The notice of motion of motion states that
“Plaintiff will request that the Court award monetary sanctions against and
Plaintiff… .” (See Motion,
p.2:9-10). JW Brands is a defendant not
a plaintiff. Additionally, the notice of
motion and the conclusion do not request sanctions against Willerford’s counsel
whereas the memorandum of points and authorities does. (See Motion, p.2:9-10, p.4:20-22,
p.6:1-2).
CONCLUSION
Willerford is ordered to serve responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set 1, without objections, within 30 days. JW Brands request for sanctions is
denied.