This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/01/2019 at 01:20:50 (UTC).

GODIGITAL INC VS JASON PETERSON ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/17/2018 a Property - Other Property Fraud case was filed by GODIGITAL INC against JASON PETERSON in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2402

  • Filing Date:

    04/17/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GODIGITAL INC.

Defendants and Respondents

PETERSON JASON

PETERSON MICHAEL

GODIGITAL MEDIA GROUP LLC

DOES 1 TO 100

LINDSAY DAVID

GDVOD LLC

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF SAGAR PARIKH

6/8/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF SAGAR PARIKH

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

6/12/2018: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/20/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

6/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF SAGAR PARIKH

9/25/2018: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF SAGAR PARIKH

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

9/25/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF SAGAR PARIKH

9/25/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF SAGAR PARIKH

Order

1/8/2019: Order

Minute Order

1/8/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

1/16/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Deposit - Jury

1/22/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Case Management Statement

1/22/2019: Case Management Statement

Demurrer

2/19/2019: Demurrer

Answer

2/19/2019: Answer

Notice of Ruling

6/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/24/2019
  • Answer; Filed by GDVOD, LLC (Defendant); Godigital Media Group, LLC (Defendant); David Lindsay (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Second Amended Complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by GDVOD, LLC (Defendant); Godigital Media Group, LLC (Defendant); David Lindsay (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike Second Amended...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Reply (to Opposition to Demurrer to First Amended Complaint); Filed by GDVOD, LLC (Defendant); Godigital Media Group, LLC (Defendant); David Lindsay (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Opposition ( to Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Godigital, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by GDVOD, LLC (Defendant); Godigital Media Group, LLC (Defendant); David Lindsay (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Logan Mulvey (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
53 More Docket Entries
  • 04/24/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Godigital, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Godigital, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Godigital, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Godigital, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Godigital, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. FRAUD ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC702402    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: 24

Defendants Jason Peterson, Logan Mulvey, Michael Peterson, David Lindsay, GoDigital Media Group, LLC and GDVOD, LLC motion to strike is DENIED.

On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff GoDigital Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant suit against Defendants Jason Peterson (“J. Peterson”), Logan Mulvey (“Mulvey”), Michael Peterson (“M. Peterson”), David Lindsay (“Lindsay”), GoDigital Media Group, LLC (“GDMG”) and GDVOD, LLC (“GDVOD”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s suit arises from a purported conspiracy by its former CEO and business partners. J. Peterson, Mulvey, M. Peterson, and Lindsay (the “individual Defendants”) were all officers, directors, and members of GDMG, and through GDMG, were also minority owners of Plaintiff. The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges six causes of action for: 1) fraud; 2) concealment; 3) breach of fiduciary duty; 4) breach of contract; 5) negligent misrepresentation; and 6) unfair competition.

On September 23, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike for lack of corporate standing. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition. No reply was submitted.

Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (CCP § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP §§ 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading. (CCP § 435.5.) Counsel failed to submit a meet and confer declaration. On this occasion, the Court will proceed to address the motion despite the insufficiency of the meet and confer. The Court cautions the parties that a code-compliant meet and confer effort is required for each demurrer or motion to strike on subsequent pleadings.

Request for Judicial Notice

The various requests for judicial notice regarding Plaintiff’s corporate status are GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(c).)

Discussion

The motion is DENIED as moot. Defendants move to strike the SAC on the grounds that Plaintiff’s corporate status with the Delaware Secretary of State (where it was initially incorporated and where it is domiciled) is void and has been void since March 2017.

Indeed, “[a] suspended corporation is disqualified from exercising any right, power or privilege.” (Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1361, 1365; see also Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 212, 217 [suspended corporation cannot “exercise the powers and privileges of a corporation in good standing”].) “During the period that a corporation is suspended for failure to pay taxes, it may not prosecute or defend an action, appeal from an adverse judgment, seek a writ of mandate, or renew a judgment obtained prior to suspension.” (Grell v. Laci Le Beau Corp. (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 1300, 1306; see also Palm Valley Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 553, 560 [suspended corporation is “disabled from participating in any litigation activities”].) At the time the motion was made, Plaintiff’s corporate status with Delaware was void. However, GoDigital has corrected the delinquency and is now current on its Delaware corporate taxes. (See Ojdana Decl. ¶ 3.) The Delaware Division of Corporations has received all required filings. (Ojdana Decl., ¶ 4.) Further, as of October 31, 2019, Plaintiff had its corporate charter revived by the Delaware Secretary of State. (See Kohrs Decl., Ex. 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff is a corporation in good standing and has standing to proceed with its claims against defendants. Plaintiff also represents that it will soon be filing a motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute GD ABC, LLC as the plaintiff in this lawsuit, rendering GoDigital, Inc.’s standing to sue a moot issue.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.