Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV04376, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04376    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 39

Ellen Pittleman, et al. v. Spina Organics, LLC, et al.

Case No. 22STCV04376

Motion for Further Bill of Particulars

Plaintiff Ellen Pittleman and her company, Hybrid Entertainment, Inc. (collectively, “Pittleman”) filed a complaint against Mauro Spina and his company, Spina Organics, LLC (collectively, “Spina”), and Spina filed a cross-complaint against Pittleman.  Allegedly, Spina hired Pittleman to update Spina’s website and assist Spina with its social media presence.  Pittleman alleges that she is owed $177,000 for her work.  Spina alleges that it agreed to give Pittleman a commission of 10% on the net profits from new sales made by Pittleman to Spina’s existing customer Healthy Spot.  Spina alleges that Pittleman demanded a 25% interest in the company, and when Spina refused, Pittleman allegedly shut down its website and removed its products from Spina’s social media accounts.

In an action on an account, a plaintiff must itemize the account in a bill of particulars.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 454.)  The bill of particulars precludes the plaintiff from advancing evidence beyond the items and amounts set forth in the bill of particulars, unless the Court grants the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the bill of particulars.  (Meredith v. Marks (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 265, 269-270.)  The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend her bill of particulars. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated October 9, 2023.)  Now, Defendants move for an order requiring Plaintiff to provide a further bill of particulars.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff must set forth the following: (1) The dates on which Pittleman purportedly provided services for Spina, (2) The services purportedly provided by Pittleman on those dates, (3) The amount of time spent by Pittleman on Spina’s business on such dates, and (4) The value of the services provided by Pittleman on such dates. 

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.  The purpose of a bill of particulars is to require the plaintiff to provide the defendant with “a detailed statement of the items charged against him.”  (McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co. (1896) 110 Cal. 687, 692.)  A bill of particulars must “at least show[] how much was claimed for each one of the . . . services alleged.”  (Gilmore v. Hill (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 881, 883, internal quotations and citations omitted.)  Pittleman does not provide this information.  Instead, she states that she seeks amounts “at a rate fixed by the trier or fact, and/or subject to expert opinion.”  Further, Plaintiff fails to set forth how much time she contends she worked on various tasks for Defendants with specificity, which is directly related to the amount she is seeking.  (See Declaration of Steven P, Krakowsky, Exh. #1.)  Pittleman’s counsel argues that she produced thousands of pages of discovery on these issues, but that is not a basis to oppose the motion.  Defendants’ counsel is entitled to a bill of particulars.  The Court orders Plaintiff to provide a further bill of particulars on these issues. 

The motion is denied in all other respects, as the bill of particular lists the services Pittleman performed and the date ranges on which the services were performed.  This information is not essential to understanding the amount Pittleman seeks in this lawsuit, which is the purpose of a bill of particulars. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

2.         Pittleman shall provide a further bill of particular that specifies the number of hours spent on the tasks at issue and the amount of compensation she is seeking.  The further bill of particulars shall be served within thirty (30) days.

3.         Defendants’ motion is denied in all other respects.

4.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.