Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2019 at 11:11:32 (UTC).

DONE VENTURES LLC VS JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/30/2017 DONE VENTURES LLC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RUTH ANN KWAN and MARK V. MOONEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4357

  • Filing Date:

    08/30/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RUTH ANN KWAN

MARK V. MOONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DONE! VENTURES LLC

COASTAL LAUNDROMAT INC.

Defendants and Respondents

JAMGOTCHIAN JERRY

EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES LP

DOES 1 TO 100

THETA HOLDINGS IV INC.

THETA HOLDING IV INC.

EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES L.P.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KRISTENSEN JOHN P. ESQ.

HIX CLAYTON J

KRISTENSEN JOHN PETER ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BATES ANDRE Y. ESQ.

ANDRADE SEAN ADRIAN ESQ.

BATES ANDRE YANNICK ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEMURRER OF JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN AND EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES L.P. TO THE COMPLAINT

1/12/2018: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEMURRER OF JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN AND EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES L.P. TO THE COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS' JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES L.P. AND THETA HOLDING IV INC.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/20/2018: DEFENDANTS' JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES L.P. AND THETA HOLDING IV INC.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

3/20/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMEDNED COMPLAINT

4/20/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMEDNED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANTS

4/23/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANTS

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; IIROPED1. ORDER

5/7/2018: STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; IIROPED1. ORDER

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE: I. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LP.; 2. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM I

8/8/2018: PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE: I. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LP.; 2. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM I

Unknown

8/28/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

8/29/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES L.P. AND THETA HOLDING IV, INC.?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC?S SECOND (CORRECTED) AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLAR

9/27/2018: DEFENDANTS JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES L.P. AND THETA HOLDING IV, INC.?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF DONE! VENTURES, LLC?S SECOND (CORRECTED) AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLAR

Minute Order

10/4/2018: Minute Order

Opposition

3/8/2019: Opposition

Reply

3/15/2019: Reply

Notice

3/26/2019: Notice

Notice of Motion

4/19/2019: Notice of Motion

Stipulation and Order

5/9/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

5/31/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/5/2017: Minute Order

100 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/13/2019
  • Motion to Quash; Filed by Jerry Jamgotchian (Defendant); EL SEGUNDO PLAZA ASSOCIATES LP (Defendant); Theta Holding IV, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Motion to Quash (Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Preferred Bank); Filed by Jerry Jamgotchian (Defendant); Theta Holding IV, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by DONE! VENTURES, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for a Trial Continuance) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for a Trial Continuance)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Trial Continuance); Filed by DONE! VENTURES, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Protective Regarding Confidentiality and Other Materials); Filed by DONE! VENTURES, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 68, Mark V. Mooney, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Compliance) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Brief (Defendants' Compendium of Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication; Declaration of Andre Y. Bates); Filed by Jerry Jamgotchian (Defendant); El Segundo Plaza Associates, L.P. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
200 More Docket Entries
  • 09/29/2017
  • NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, COMPLAINT & ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ON DEFENDANT JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by DONE! VENTURES, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DONE! VENTURES, LLC (Plaintiff); Coastal Laundromat Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (1) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674357    Hearing Date: April 19, 2021    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Department 20


Date: Monday, April 19, 2021

Case Name: DONE! Ventures, LLC v. Jerry Jamagotchian, et al.

Case No.: BC674357

Motion: Quash Subpoenas

Moving Party: Defendants Jamagotchian, El Segundo Plaza, Theta Holding IV

Responding Party: Plaintiff DONE! Ventures, LLC

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motions to Quash are DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LA Court Connect rather than in person in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.


 

BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff DONE! Ventures, LLC filed a Complaint against Defendants Jerry Jamagotchian, El Segundo Plaza Associates LP, Theta Holding IV, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, stating causes of action for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair business practices under Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17200.

On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff served deposition subpoenas for production of business records on nonparty Debbie Kong of Preferred Bank, “Defendants’ banker,” and nonparty The Accountancy, “Defendants’ accountant.”

On February 8, 2021, Defendants filed two Motions to Quash Deposition Subpoenas.

On April 12, 2021, Defendants filed Notices of Non-Opposition declaring that no opposition was received to the Motions to Quash.

On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Declaration re: Notices of Non-Opposition arguing Defendants failed to meet and confer before filing the Motions and arguing the Motions are now moot because the subpoenas were voluntarily withdrawn on February 10, 2021.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues the Motions to Quash are moot because the relevant deposition subpoenas were voluntarily withdrawn on February 10, 2021. (Kristensen Decl., Exh. 1 (“We received your Motions to Quash our subpoenas to Preferred Bank and The Accountancy. . . . We hereby withdraw the subpoenas issued on January 20, 2021.”)) The Court finds the Motions are moot— in the absence of a request for sanctions, all the relief requested herein has already been achieved via the voluntary withdrawal of the subpoenas. (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 454 (controversy moot “when a court ruling can have no practical effect…”)) Had Defendants sought sanctions under CCP sec. 1987.2, the withdrawal of the subpoenas would not necessarily be dispositive here; however, as no sanctions were requested, the withdrawal resolved all issues raised in the Motions to Quash and thus mooted the Motions. Therefore, the Motions are DENIED.

CONCLUSION

The Motions to Quash are DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LA Court Connect rather than in person in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case Number: BC674357    Hearing Date: October 01, 2020    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 20


Hearing Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020

Case Name: Done! Ventures, LLC v. Jerry Jamgotchian et al.

Case No.: BC674357

Motion: Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Moving Party: Plaintiff Done!

Responding Party: Defendant Jamgotchian

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Jamgotchian shall prepare and serve Further Responses to Requests 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 within 25 days of this Order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LA Court Connect rather than in person in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.


 

DISCUSSION

After review of the Motion to Compel Further Responses filed by Plaintiff Done! Ventures, LLC (“Plaintiff”), the Opposition filed by Defendant Jerry Jamgotchian, and the Reply filed by Plaintiff, the Court rules as follows:

Relevant Background

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Production from Jamgotchian. A motion to compel further responses must be supported by “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought,” and a supporting declaration showing the moving party made a good faith attempt to meet and confer before filing the motion. (CCP sec. 2031.310(b)) “To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224) “[I]f a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection.”  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses by Jamgotchian to Requests for Production 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40. Requests 34, 35, 36, and 37 seek documents concerning “the Coastal Laundry’s sale” to Bruce Nye (RFP 34), Nye’s proposed sale of Coastal Laundry to Plaintiff (RFP 35), Jamgotchian’s purchase of Coastal Laundry from Nye (RFP 36), and any proposed sales or marketing by Jamgotchian of Coastal Laundry after March 2017 (RFP 37). Requests 38, 39, and 40 concern Coastal Laundry’s income and expenses after March 2017; Plaintiff seeks both documentary evidence and “native format data” from Quickbooks and other programs. Jamgotchian assert the same slate of objections against all seven Requests:

“Responding Party incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Responding Party objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad. Responding Party further objects to the extent that this request seeks information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that may violate the attorney work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege. Responding Party objects to this [request] on the grounds that it seeks information that is private, privileged, and/or confidential that, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy rights of Responding Party or third parties under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and/or any statutory or common law rights of privacy or confidentiality.”

(See Separate Statement.) However, in objecting to Requests 34-37, Jamgotchian adds:

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party hereby responds as follows: After a diligent and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party believes that all responsive documents in his possession, custody or control have been previously produced by the parties in this consolidated action and/or third parties; those documents will not be produce again as they are equally available to the parties and to avoid duplication of the production.”

(See Separate Statement.)

To summarize: Jamgotchian objects that Requests 38, 39, and 40 are (1) overbroad, (2) not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, (3) violative of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, and (4) violative of privacy rights. Jamgotchian further objects to Requests 34, 35, 36, and 37 that all responsive documents have already been produced to Plaintiff, though not necessarily produced by Jamgotchian, and refuse to produce any further documents “to avoid duplication.”

Each of these objections lacks merit, but the Court notes at the outset that Defendant makes no attempt to support the attorney-client privilege and privacy objections. Once a motion to compel has been filed, “the burden is on responding party to justify any objection.”  (Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4th at 255.) The “party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing its existence” before the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.) Jamgotchian’s privilege and privacy objections are unsupported by a privilege log or factual showing. Jamgotchian does not attempt to justify the objections in the Opposition, even though the privilege log issue was raised in Plaintiff’s moving papers. The Court therefore OVERRULES the privilege and privacy objections as meritless.

 

Financial Information After Laundromat Expansion

Jamgotchian argues discovery should be restricted only to financial records for March 2017 to June 2017 because Jamgotchian finished expanding the laundromat in June 2017, contending post-June records would be irrelevant. Jamgotchian argues the nearly four-year period of financial records sought is overbroad due to the expansion and suggests this is an improper attempt to examine Jamgotchian’s financial condition before trial.

Evid. Code sec. 210 defines relevant evidence as “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” “The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends ‘logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference’ to establish material facts.” (People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 177.)  “A party seeking the protective order must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the issuance of a protective order is proper.” (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.)

Here, information regarding Coastal Laundry’s post-expansion income and expenses would still be relevant to Plaintiff’s calculation of damages. Provided Plaintiff’s damages analysis accounts for alterations to income and expenses attributable to the expansion, then evidence of income and expenses will be relevant to demonstrate losses incurred by Plaintiff. Jamgotchian will be able to contest Plaintiff’s analysis later, but have not shown that such discovery would be so obviously irrelevant to warrant denying discovery. Jamgotchian’s act of expanding the laundromat does not in itself deprive Plaintiff of the ability to assess the business after expansion. Therefore, Jamgotchian has not shown good cause to limit this discovery to pre-June records. Plaintiff’s counsel was reasonably justified in declining a discovery compromise that would have limited discovery on this subject.  

Financial Condition Discovery Before Trial

Jamgotchian construes this discovery as an attempted pre-trial financial condition examination and argue this motion is preempted by Judge Mooney’s September 16, 2019 ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct financial condition discovery. (See Bates Decl., Ex. A.) Jamgotchian claims Judge Mooney “stated that he saw no reason why the usual trial subpoena procedure permitted under Civil Code section 3295(c) would not suffice for obtaining Defendant’s financial records.” (Opposition, p. 2:16-17.) Upon review, the Court notes the statement attributed to Judge Mooney is not found in the attached ruling. Jamgotchian did not attach a transcript of the hearing to substantiate their account of Judge Mooney’s ruling. Plaintiff’s account of Judge Mooney’s ruling permitting certain net worth discovery is similarly unsubstantiated. The ruling merely denies the motion for leave to conduct financial discovery “without prejudice” without further elaboration. (Bates Decl., Ex. A.)

The Court therefore concludes that, because the motion was denied without prejudice, Judge Mooney’s ruling does not preclude the Court from now authorizing such discovery. Though collateral estoppel is not claimed here, the Court notes that Judge Mooney’s order would have no collateral estoppel effect where it denied the motion without prejudice. The order itself also does not make any findings which would be contradicted here. Further, there is no evidence Judge Mooney had an opportunity to consider whether Coastal Laundry’s income and expenses would be relevant for the first phase of trial. Jamgotchian does not claim Judge Mooney rejected the same arguments Plaintiff makes now. Thus, in the absence of evidence Judge Mooney rejected Plaintiff’s arguments here, the Court does not find the September 16, 2019 ruling dispositive. Indeed, as Civ. Code sec. 3295(c) concerns the financial condition of defendants, the Court suspects Judge Mooney dealt with discovery of Jamgotchian’s financial condition more generally rather than the income and expenses of Coastal Laundry specifically.

Finally, upon review of the meet and confer correspondence, the Court finds Jamgotchian’s counsel agreed to provide financial documents. Jamgotchian’s counsel agreed to provide supplemental responses after Plaintiff’s counsel stated he “do[es]n’t want supplemental responses that don’t provide the financials.” (Kristensen Decl., Ex. 4.) Therefore, the Court rejects as improper the condition that Jamgotchian will not provide financial records already produced in other actions. Such documents must be reproduced, as agreed.

The Court has now rejected each argument asserted by Jamgotchian. The discovery sought is relevant and Plaintiff has shown good cause for each request. Jamgotchian failed to support the privilege and privacy objections. (Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4th at 255.) It does not appear that Judge Mooney’s order addressed the issues currently before the Court; moreover, Judge Mooney’s order has no preclusive effect on a later motion where Judge Mooney denied the original motion without prejudice. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED.  Plaintiff does not seek monetary sanctions against Jamgotchian, so the Court does not reach the issue of whether monetary discovery sanctions are warranted here.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Jamgotchian shall prepare and serve Further Responses to Requests 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 within 25 days of this Order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LA Court Connect rather than in person in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KRISTENSEN JOHN