This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/10/2021 at 01:02:00 (UTC).

SCOTT J. SPOLIN LAW CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS BRONHR, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Case Summary

On 10/10/2019 SCOTT J SPOLIN LAW CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against BRONHR, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9413

  • Filing Date:

    10/10/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SCOTT J. SPOLIN LAW CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

BRONHR LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

BARONHR LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SALOMONS GARY

Defendant Attorney

WELCH ERIC M.

 

Court Documents

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

8/24/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

8/24/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Separate Statement - Separate Statement NON- OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE AND IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BARON

7/31/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement NON- OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE AND IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BARON

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/21/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Motion For Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted

4/21/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Motion For Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories)

1/23/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories)

Notice (name extension) - Notice Amended Proof of Service of Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

1/29/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Amended Proof of Service of Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing

2/24/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

2/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted) of 02/24/2020

2/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted) of 02/24/2020

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

2/27/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

3/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")) of 03/09/2020

3/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")) of 03/09/2020

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Motion for Order

3/17/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Motion for Order

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/21/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/10/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/10/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/10/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/16/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 01/11/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/16/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/16/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/16/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation on 10/10/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2020
  • DocketAddress for GARY SALOMONS (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: BARONHR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 01/11/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 11/15/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Bronhr, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Defendant); As to: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Bronhr, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Defendant); Service Date: 10/16/2019; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Bronhr, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Bronhr, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Bronhr, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09413    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: 26

Scott J. Spolin Law Corp. v. BaronHR, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED AND CODE-COMPLIANT FURTHER RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1,635.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of attorney-client retainer agreement and related claims against Defendant BaronHR, LLC (“Defendant”) on October 10, 2019. On March 9, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions. On April 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. On July 31, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition and Plaintiff replied on August 12, 2020.

Procedural Requirements

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Here, Defendant’s verified responses were served by overnight delivery on February 25, 2020. (Motion, Salomons Decl., Exhs. A-B.) The notice of motion and motion to compel further were timely served on April 6, 2020. (Motion, POS.)

The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter on February 26, 2020. (Motion, Salomons Decl., Exh. C.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) The Motion is accompanied by a concurrently filed separate statement.

Substantive Basis

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the [propounding party] may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that: ¶ An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1), (3).)

Plaintiff moves for Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 15.1, 17.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, 50.6, and all subparts thereof. (Motion, Separate Statement.) These interrogatories seek basic information regarding Defendant’s defense to this action. In response, Defendant makes the same boilerplate statement (1) objecting that the proper venue for this action is arbitration; and (2) contending that discovery is continuing. (Motion, Separate Statement.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that these responses are improper and incomplete. On March 9, 2020, the Court ordered Defendant to serve verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objection. The responses served on February 25, 2020 did not comply with the Court’s order insofar as they contained objections and did not comply with the requirements of the Discovery Code. Nor did Defendant serve responses after the March 9, 2020 order that complied with the Court’s directive.

A response to an interrogatory shall be any of the following (1) an answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) an objection to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).) Asserting an improper objection and stating that discovery is continuing is not an acceptable response under the statute. When a party does not know or have the information requested, the party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Defendant has not demonstrated a good faith and reasonable effort to respond to the interrogatories. Nor is the question of arbitration of the parties’ dispute before the Court. Plaintiff is entitled to service of further responses without objection that comply with the statutory requirements. Defendant is ordered to serve said responses within 20 days’ notice of this order.

Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210 and 2023.010. The sanctions are properly noticed, but the Court finds the amount sought excessive. Using a lodestar calculation, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,635.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $525.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Motion, Salomons Decl., ¶6.) Defendant and its counsel of record are jointly ordered to pay sanctions of $1,635.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days’ notice of this order.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Scott J. Spolin Law Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT BARONHR, LLC IS ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED AND CODE-COMPLIANT FURTHER RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1,635.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

PLAINTIFF SCOTT J. SPOLIN, A LAW CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AGAINST DEFENDANT BARONHR, LLC IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $585.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Only October 10, 2019, Plaintiff Scott J. Spolin, A Law Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of retainer agreement and related claims against Defendant BaronHR, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant filed its Answer through its counsel of record, Eric M. Welch, Esq. On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions (“Motion”).

On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions on Defendant. (Motion, Salomons Decl., Exh. A.) Following multiple extensions of the time to respond, Defendant served unverified responses to the Requests for Admission on December 20, 2019. (Id. at Exh. B.) Plaintiff sent meet and confer letters to defense counsel on January 6 and 17, 2020. (Id. at Exhs. C-D.) To date, Plaintiff has not received verified responses to the discovery requests propounded on Defendant. (Id. at ¶¶5, 7.)  As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Defendant has not provided verified responses to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff nor filed an opposition to the motion. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses.

The Court finds the failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030 and 2033.280, and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this unopposed Motion. Sanctions are granted against Defendant in the amount of $585.00, based on one hour of attorney time billed at $525.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Id. at ¶8.)

PLAINTIFF SCOTT J. SPOLIN, A LAW CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AGAINST DEFENDANT BARONHR, LLC IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $585.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC09413    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 26

Scott J. Spolin, a Law Corporation v. Baronhr, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Scott J. Spolin, a Law Corporation’s Motion Compelling Defendant BaronHR, LLC to Respond To Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $585.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Only October 10, 2019, Plaintiff Scott J. Spolin, A Law Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of retainer agreement and related claims against Defendant BaronHR, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant filed its Answer through its counsel of record, Eric M. Welch, Esq. On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (“Motion”). However, the Motion was served on James D. Hepworth, who is not defense counsel of record. Plaintiff is admonished to ensure that all notice of Court proceedings is provided to Defendant’s counsel of record. That being said, because Defendant has filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion through its counsel of record on February 27, 2020, the Court finds any irregularity in notice was waived.

Plaintiff served form interrogatories on Defendant on November 21, 2019. (Motion, Salomons Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) At the time this Motion was filed, Defendant had not served verified responses to the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶3-7.) There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses.

To the extent Defendant contends it served verified responses to the interrogatories on February 25, 2020, no evidence such as a declaration or an authenticated copy of the responses themselves, has been submitted to the Court. Therefore, the Court declines to find the Motion moot. Plaintiff is entitled to an order that Defendant serve verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. The responses are due within 20 days’ notice of this order.

The court also finds Defendant’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 and have been properly noticed. However, the amount requested is excessive in light of the simplicity of this Motion. The request for sanctions is granted against Defendant in the amount of $585.00 based on one hours of attorney time billed at $525.00 per hour. (Motion, Salomons Decl., ¶8.) The sanctions are to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this order.

Plaintiff Scott J. Spolin, a Law Corporation’s Motion Compelling Defendant BaronHR, LLC to Respond To Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $585.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC09413    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Scott J. Spolin Law Corp. v. Baronhr, LLC

DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’ motion is CONTINUED to March 18, 2020, to maintain timely service within the meaning of CCP § 1005(b).

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

This action concerns breach of contract arising from a legal retainer agreement.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service on January 29, 2020, showing service of the moving papers on Eric M. Welch, Esq. by mail on January 28, 2020. Welch is Defendant BaronHR, LLC’s attorney of record. Based on the February 24, 2020 hearing, moving papers served by mail must have been served by January 24, 2020. (CCP §§ 1005(b), 1013.) Thus, the motion was not timely served on Defendant BaronHR, LLC.

Plaintiff timely filed the moving papers on January 23, 2020 on James D. Hepworth. But, Hepworth is not Defendant BaronHR, LLC’s attorney of record. (See BaronHR, LLC’s Answer, filed 11/15/19.)

Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED.  Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BaronHR, LLC, a limited liability company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Welch, Eric M.