This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 01:16:33 (UTC).

LEGAUX HOLDINGS LLC VS B&W HOLDINGS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/23/2016 LEGAUX HOLDINGS LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against B W HOLDINGS 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 ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1899

  • Filing Date:

    11/23/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LEGAUX HOLDINGS LLC

Defendants and Respondents

DIGITAL INTERIORS

DOES 1-20

BURCH JUDSON

B&W HOLDINGS INC

WALTERS WAYNE

B&W HOLDINGS INC DBA DIGITAL INTERIORS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

IVIE MCNEILL & WYATT APLC

DIGGS RODNEY S.

Defendant Attorney

DUNN BRIAN C.

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

12/21/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; ETC

6/22/2018: DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; ETC

Minute Order

12/18/2018: Minute Order

Order

12/18/2018: Order

Notice of Ruling

12/19/2018: Notice of Ruling

SUMMONS

11/23/2016: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/14/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/27/2017: SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Unknown

4/28/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

5/2/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

7/28/2017: Unknown

Unknown

7/28/2017: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

7/31/2017: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

8/8/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

9/15/2017: DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

MOTION TO STRIKE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/20/2017: MOTION TO STRIKE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial and All Related Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff Legaux Holdings, LLC's Ex Parte Applicat...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Order (Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Related Dates); Filed by Legaux Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for an Order to Continue Trial and All Related Dates); Filed by Legaux Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • at 08:31 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Notice of Ruling (Re Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial Date); Filed by Legaux Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Minute Order ((Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for an Order to Continue Tri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Order (Re: Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Related Dates); Filed by Legaux Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
66 More Docket Entries
  • 01/09/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Legaux Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Legaux Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Legaux Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC641899    Hearing Date: April 19, 2021    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

Defendants B&W Holdings, Inc., Wayne Walters, and Judson Burch seek to exclude evidence from a lay witness about Plaintiff Legaux Holdings, LLC’s lost profits. In dispute is Plaintiff’s claim that it lost profits from August 2015 to February 2016 due to a late reopening after the remodel. Defendants state that the only evidence Plaintiff produced in support of its lost profits claim in information about its sales from August 2016 to August 2017 and an article about restaurant industry financial benchmarks. Defendants argue Plaintiff’s claimed lost profits are speculative because they are based on information from a year later, and the information does not take into account a ramp-up period after reopening.

In opposition, Plaintiff first points out the motion in limine was filed late. If Plaintiff needs additional time to oppose the motion, Plaintiff should say so at the hearing.

Plaintiff argues the lay witnesses – apparently they will be Plaintiff’s owners – have been in the restaurant business for over a decade, are knowledgeable about restaurant sales, and have personal knowledge about their restaurant’s revenue. “ ‘[W]here the operation of an established business is prevented or interrupted, as by a tort or breach of contract or warranty, damages for the loss of prospective profits that otherwise might have been made from its operation are generally recoverable for the reason that their occurrence and extent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty from the past volume of business and other provable data relevant to the probable future sales. . . . All of these [cited] cases recognize and apply the general principle that damages for the loss of prospective profits are recoverable where the evidence makes reasonably certain their occurrence and extent.’ [Citations.]” (Kids’ Universe v. In2Labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 883.) If “there has been operating experience sufficient to permit a reasonable estimate of probable income and expense, damages for loss of prospective profits are awarded.” (Ibid.) According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s restaurant had previously been in operation, was remodeled and scheduled to be reopened in 2015, but did not actually reopen until February 2016. Plaintiff’s restaurant, therefore, was not a new business without a track record. Likewise, the restaurant business is not a new industry. Defendants did not show that lost profits damages for the period from August 2015 to February 2016 are speculative.

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff did not produce evidence sufficient to prove lost damages is not convincing. Plaintiffs’ owners state they are knowledgeable about the restaurant industry and have personal knowledge about their restaurant’s finances. They have the knowledge to testify about the restaurant’s actual financial performance.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not designate Plaintiff’s owners as experts. Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, subdivision (a) requires the exchange of “a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at the trial.” Plaintiff did not designate its owners as experts, and therefore Defendants did not know that they should notice the owners’ expert depositions. Because Plaintiff did not designate the owners as experts, Plaintiff is precluded from eliciting expert opinions from Plaintiffs’ owners, such as opinions about the amount of money the restaurant would have made in the period from August 2015 to February 2016 if it had been able to reopen in August 2015.

In sum, the motion in limine is GRANTED in part.

Defendants’ MIL No. 2

Defendants seek to exclude evidence about the restaurant’s diminution in value because Plaintiff’s owner testified the restaurant has higher sales than before the remodel even though the owner also thought some customers had not come back after the remodel.

Plaintiff argues this motion should also be denied as untimely. If Plaintiff needs more time to oppose, Plaintiff should say so at the hearing. Plaintiff also argues the evidence is relevant and not prejudicial.

Plaintiff’s owner has personal knowledge about the restaurant’s sales numbers. He can also be questioned about his knowledge about whether the restaurant lost customers. The trier of fact can evaluate weight to give Plaintiff’s testimony about lost customers.

The motion in limine is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DIGITAL INTERIORS is a litigant