On 01/13/2016 J A K DESIGN CORP filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against BLACK CAT FASHION INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Not Classified By Court.
Not Classified By Court
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DANIEL S. MURPHY
J.A.K. DESIGN CORP.
DOES 1 THROUGH 100
BLACK CAT FASHION INC.
BINDER & ASSOCIATES
LAW OFFICES OF RANDALL M. AWAD APC
NADAR NARAGHI & WOODCOCK APLC
8/10/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED A5 COUNSEL CIVIL
11/15/2018: Minute Order
3/4/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/13/2016: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
5/18/2016: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF COURT'S RULING AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
5/18/2016: Minute Order
7/15/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT
2/2/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
3/30/2017: Minute Order
3/31/2017: JOINT EXPARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL AND DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND ETC
9/8/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT BLACK CAT FASHION, INC. TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS; REQUEST FOR ORDER AWARDING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIF
10/2/2017: ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
10/26/2017: Minute Order
Notice of Entry of Judgment (or Order); Filed by J.A.K. Design Corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:37 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Jury Trial - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Judgment; Filed by J.A.K. Design Corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Judgment; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:37 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Final Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Black Cat Fashion, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by 1st Class MailRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Strike; Filed by Black Cat Fashion, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by J.A.K. Design Corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by J.A.K. Design Corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC607160 Hearing Date: November 18, 2020 Dept: 32
j.a.k. design corp.,
BLACK CAT FASHION INC., et. al.
Case No.: BC607160
Hearing Date: November 18, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion to compel Black cat’s further responses to requests for production of documents, set one
Plaintiff J.A.K. Design Corp. dba Planet USA (JAK) commenced this action against Defendants Black Cat Fashion, Inc. dba Dulcci Vetan (Black Cat) on January 13, 2016. The Complaint asserted a single cause of action for negligence.
On December 4, 2018, the Court presided over a default prove-up hearing. Judgment was entered for JAK and against Black Cat in the total amount of $1,217,586.71.
JAK moves to compel Black Cat to provide further responses to its Requests for Production of Documents (RFP), Set One, Nos. 1-103. JAK also moves to compel Black Cat to comply with its written statements of compliance as to RFP Nos. 1-5, 41-43, 47-48, 51, 53-54, 56, 58, 61, 63, 76, 78, 81, 83, 86-89, and 101-103 by producing documents responsive to these requests.
This motion is moot. After JAK brought this motion, Black Cat served JAK with further responses to RFP, Set One, and produced responsive documents. (Opri Decl. ¶ 2(h), (j), Ex. N.)
This leaves the issue of sanctions. (CRC Rule 3.1348(a).) JAK requests monetary sanctions of $6,810 against Black Cat and its counsel of record because Black Cat’s defective discovery responses necessitated the bringing of this motion. Black Cat responds that JAK failed to meet and confer. Black Cat’s counsel avers that she did not receive the meet-and-confer letter sent by JAK’s counsel until Black Cat was served with the instant motion. (Opri Decl. ¶ 2(c).)
The Court finds Black Cat’s counsel’s averment to be credible because she is an officer of the court. The Court will not award JAK monetary sanctions because Black Cat did not receive JAK’s meet-and-confer letter and therefore did not have an opportunity to provide further responses in response to the arguments made my JAK in this motion. Moreover, given the number of discovery responses at issue in this motion, the Court concludes that JAK should have attempted further meet and confer efforts. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 (“The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted.”).)
JAK’s motion to compel Black Cat to provide further responses and to produce documents is moot. JAK’s and Black Cat’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases