This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 15:03:06 (UTC).

YAYSAVE LLC VS NEXGEN BIOLABS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/24/2015 YAYSAVE LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NEXGEN BIOLABS 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 SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2294

  • Filing Date:

    08/24/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

YAYSAVE LLC

Defendants and Respondents

CARLUCCI JOSH F.

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

NEXGEN BIOLABS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY G. JACOBS THE

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

9/21/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10/22/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MALL

10/30/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MALL

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/14/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/14/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/15/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

1/22/2016: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF YAYSAVE, LLC'S NOTICE QF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CCP ?473(B); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

4/20/2016: PLAINTIFF YAYSAVE, LLC'S NOTICE QF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CCP ?473(B); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Minute Order

8/4/2016: Minute Order

RULING

11/16/2016: RULING

Minute Order

11/16/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

1/4/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Minute Order

3/10/2017: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PLAINTIFF YAYSAVE, LLC'S COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CCP ?585, ET SEQ.

4/14/2017: PLAINTIFF YAYSAVE, LLC'S COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CCP ?585, ET SEQ.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

4/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

4/14/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY G. JACOBS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF YAYSAVE, LLC'S COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CCP ?585, ET SEQ.

4/14/2017: DECLARATION OF JEFFREY G. JACOBS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF YAYSAVE, LLC'S COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CCP ?585, ET SEQ.

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/04/2017
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2017
  • NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 71; (OSC-Failure to File Default Judg; Finding in favor of Plaintiff) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Request; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • DECLARATION OF SHOLOM GOROWITZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CCP 585, ET SEQ.

    Read MoreRead Less
49 More Docket Entries
  • 10/30/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE BY MALL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2015
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2015
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2015
  • PLAINTIFF MEMORYTEN, INC.S COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC592294    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

YAYSAVE, LLC, a California limited liability company,

vs.

NEXGEN BIOLABS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al.

Case No.: BC592294

Hearing Date: July 30, 2020

Defendant Nexgen Biolabs, Inc.’s motions to compel responses to requests for production (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) are granted only as to the procedurally defective verifications and are otherwise denied as moot.

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted against Plaintiff and its counsel of record in the reduced total amount of $2,433.30

Two discovery motions are presently before the Court. Defendant Nexgen Biolabs, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for orders compelling Plaintiff Yaysave, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to respond to requests for production (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) (collectively “discovery requests”). Defendant also requests awards of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel of record in the total amount of $6,090.80; namely, $3,141.65 for the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories and $2,949.15 for the requests for production. (Notices of Motion, pg. 1.)

Motions to Compel Responses

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the discovery requests are moot. In reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiff served untimely responses on June 9, 2020 and July 17, 2020, prior to the hearing on the instant motion. (Replies, pg. 2.) The Court notes Plaintiff’s assertion in opposition that it served responses and supplemental responses to the discovery requests on May 13, 2020, and July 17, 2020 is contradicted by the responses Plaintiff attached to the Declaration of Jacobs, which purport to be initial responses to form interrogatories and supplemental responses to requests for production; no special interrogatory responses are attached. (Decl. of Jacobs ¶5, Exhs. A, B.) In addition, Plaintiff’s verifications are procedurally defective, given that the verification attached to the July 17, 2020 supplemental responses is unsigned. (Decl. of Jacobs, Exh. B.) As such, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide proper verifications.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions to compel responses are granted as to the procedurally defective verifications and are otherwise denied as moot.

Requests for Sanctions

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions remain at issue notwithstanding the Court’s denial of the motions as moot. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CRC 3.1348(a) (“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”).) Defendant submitted evidence that it propounded the discovery requests on Plaintiff on January 31, 2020, making the deadline for response March 6, 2020. (Decl. of Hua ¶2.) Defendant submitted evidence that when Defendant had received no responses by March 13, 2020, its counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding responses, and thereafter contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on March 17, 2020 regarding the status of the responses but did not receive a response. (Decl. of Hua ¶¶3-4.) In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the requests for sanctions should be denied given that Defendant filed the motions at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that Defendant could have avoided filing the subject motions by asking for an extension of time to file considering the disruptions caused by COVID-19. (Opposition, pgs. 3-4.) However, Plaintiff submits no evidence that it agreed to give Defendants an extension of the filing deadline. In addition, Plaintiff submits no evidence suggesting its failure to provide responses to the discovery requests was substantially justified. As such, Defendant incurred certain fees associated with filing the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s response.

Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances including Plaintiff’s joint opposition, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motions is $2,433.30 reflecting 6 hours incurred at $385 per hour (3 hours for drafting the special interrogatories motion, 1 hour for drafting the request for production motion, 1 hour for drafting the replies, and 1 hour for attending the hearing on the motions) plus $123.30 in filing fees. (See SI-Decl. of Hua ¶¶8-9; RFP-Decl. of Hua ¶¶8-9.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted in the reduced total amount of $2,433.30