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.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA
CARLUCCI JOSH F.
DOES 1 THROUGH 100
NEXGEN BIOLABS INC.
LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY G. JACOBS THE
9/21/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
10/22/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
10/30/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MALL
12/14/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
1/14/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
1/15/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
1/22/2016: Minute Order
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
8/4/2016: Minute Order
11/16/2016: Minute Order
1/4/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING
3/10/2017: Minute Order
4/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
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.
4/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL
4/14/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
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.
Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 71; (OSC-Failure to File Default Judg; Finding in favor of Plaintiff) -Read MoreRead Less
Request; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTRead MoreRead Less
JUDGMENTRead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR DISMISSALRead MoreRead Less
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)Read MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF SHOLOM GOROWITZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CCP 585, ET SEQ.Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MALLRead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTRead MoreRead Less
Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF MEMORYTEN, INC.S COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Yaysave, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC592294 Hearing Date: July 30, 2020 Dept: 71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
YAYSAVE, LLC, a California limited liability company,
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