Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV16859, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16859    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 40

23STCV16859 The Berglund Group v. The Versant Law Group, et al.

Thursday, April 24, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF THE BERGLUND GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS [Res. No. -1219]

                                                                                         I.         BACKGROUND

On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff The Berglund Group (“TBG”) filed a complaint against Defendants

The Versant Law Group, LLP (“Versant”), Alex Hamilton (“Hamilton”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 10.

      On December 15, 2023, Plaintiffs TBG and Keith Berglund (“Berglund”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of oral contract, (2) fraud in the inducement, (3) quantum meruit, (4) common counts for services rendered, (5) unfair business practices, (6) failure to pay wages, (7) violation of Lab. Code § 226, et seq., (8) violation of Pen. Code § 496, and (9) declaratory relief.

      On March 4, 2024, Defendants filed a joint answer to the complaint.

      On April 12, 2024, Defendants filed a joint answer to the operative FAC.

      On July 25, 2024, after hearing, the Court granted the motion of Shain Wasser to be relieved as counsel for Defendants. (7/25/24 Minute Order.)

      On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff TBG filed the instant Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). Plaintiff TBG moves for “an order deeming Defendant, The Versant Law Group, LLP (‘Versant’), to have admitted matters requested in TBG’s Requests for Admission, Set One. Further, TBG asks for an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200 against Defendant Versant.” (Not. of Mot. at p. 1:24-27.) The Motion was served only on Defendant Hamilton via e-mail or electronic transmission. (See Motion at POS.)

      As of April 22, 2025, no opposition brief has been filed.

¿¿¿ 

                                                                                                 II.        DISCUSSION

A.     The Motion Has Not Been Properly Served and Cannot be Granted.

      As a procedural matter, Plaintiff TBG has not filed any proof of service demonstrating that Defendant Versant was served in any manner with the Motion. “[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [emphasis added].) “The failure to give . . . notice of [a] motion... violate[s] not only statutory requirements but fundamental principles of due process as well.” (Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) Thus, the lack of service of the Motion on Defendant Versant prevents the Court from granting the Motion.

      Additionally, the service of the Motion on Defendant Hamilton via e-mail or electronic transmission was improper. At the time the Motion was served on Defendant Hamilton, Defendant Hamilton was self-represented. As to a self-represented party, for electronic service to be proper, Defendant Hamilton was required to have expressly consented to electronic service. There is no evidence that Defendant Hamilton has expressly consented to receive electronic service. (See CCP § 1010.6(c)(2), [“An unrepresented party may consent to receive electronic service”].) Accordingly, electronic service of the Motion on Defendant Hamilton was improper under Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6.  

      In sum, neither Defendant Versant nor Defendant Hamilton was properly served with the Motion.

                                                                                         III.       CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff The Berglund Group, Inc’s. Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.