This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 03:22:57 (UTC).

INVESERVE CORPORATION VS. GGG HOLDINGS, L.L.C., ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/05/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by INVESERVE CORPORATION against GGG HOLDINGS, L L C in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8125

  • Filing Date:

    04/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

INVESERVE CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

HANSON GLORIA

HANSON GEORGE P.

GGG HOLDINGS L.L.C. A NEVADA LIMITED

HANSON GEORGE P.AND GLORIA HANSON

TALLASSEE HOLDINGS LLC A NEVADA LIMITED

GPH HOLDINGS LLC A NEVADA LIMITED

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/5/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

4/5/2018: Summons

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

5/16/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

5/16/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

5/16/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Unknown

5/31/2018: Unknown

Notice

6/1/2018: Notice

Minute Order

9/4/2018: Minute Order

Other -

9/4/2018: Other -

Notice

2/26/2019: Notice

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

4/9/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

4/9/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

4/9/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

4/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Order

6/7/2019: Order

Minute Order

6/7/2019: Minute Order

Notice

6/17/2019: Notice

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • Notice (of Court Order Re: Motions to Compel Further Responses); Filed by GGG Holdings, L.L.C., a Nevada limited (Defendant); George P.and Gloria Hanson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Order (Court's Order re: Motions to Compel Further Responses); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel Interrogatories - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department B; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 05/31/2018
  • Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued; Filed by GGG Holdings, L.L.C., a Nevada limited (Defendant); George P.and Gloria Hanson (Defendant); GPH HOLDINGS, LLC, a NEVADA LIMITED (Cross-Complainant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Answer; Filed by GGG Holdings, L.L.C., a Nevada limited (Defendant); George P.and Gloria Hanson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by InveServe Corporation, a California (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by InveServe Corporation, a California (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by InveServe Corporation, a California (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • Summons; Filed by InveServe Corporation, a California (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by InveServe Corporation, a California (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by InveServe Corporation, a California (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC068125    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

Inveserve corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

GGG HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: EC068125

Hearing Date: January 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for terminating sanctions, or issue/evidentiary sanctions, and for monetary sanctions

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of the Operative Complaint

Plaintiff InveServe Corporation (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it entered into a written Property Management Agreement with Defendant GGG Holdings, LLC (“GGG”) on December 2, 2014, regarding the management of the Passage Avenue Apartments located at 16844 Passage Avenue in Paramount, such that Plaintiff would perform and coordinate maintenance, repairs, and alterations and to perform capital improvements at the apartment in exchange for GGG’s payment. Plaintiff alleges it performed on the agreement from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, and made improvements in the sum of $25,424.08, but that GGG breached the agreement by failing to make any payments.

Plaintiff also alleges that on June 3, 2013, it entered into a Property Management Agreement with Defendants George P. Hanson and Gloria G. Hanson, the trustees of the Hanson Trust dated August 3, 1987 (“Trust Defendants”) for the management of certain apartments located at 605 South Verdugo Road in Glendale (“Verdugo Road Apartments”), 3229 Baldwin Park Boulevard in Baldwin Park; (“Baldwin Park Apartments”), 743 South Sierra Vista Avenue in Alhambra (“Sierra Vista Apartments”), and 2737 Via Paseo in Montebello (“Via Paseo Apartments”). Plaintiff alleges that it performed maintenance and made capital improvements in the total sum of $56,671.69 on these properties, but Trust Defendants have not made payments.

The Complaint, filed April 5, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) account stated; (3) breach of contract; and (4) account stated. The 1st and 2nd causes of action are alleged against GGG. The 3rd and 4th causes of action are alleged against the Trust Defendants.

B. Motion on Calendar

On December 20, 2019, GGG and George P. Hanson, Trustee of the Hanson Trust Dated August 3, 1987 (“Hanson Trust”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions or issue/evidentiary sanctions, and monetary sanctions in the amount of $8,810 against Plaintiff.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. On January 8, 2020, GGG and Hanson Trust filed a notice of Plaintiff’s non-opposition to the motion, stating they have not received any opposition to the motion.

DISCUSSION

A. Terminating Sanctions

CCP §2023.030 permits the Court to impose terminating sanctions for discovery misuses, which are defined by CCP §2023.010 to include the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery and the failure to comply with a Court discovery order. The Court weighs the following factors when considering the present motion: (1) defendants’ conduct, indicating whether their actions were willful; (2) the detriment to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the number of formal and informal unsuccessful attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

Defendants argue that there has been a history of misuse of the discovery process by Plaintiff. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to properly respond to 2 different sets of discovery. According to the declaration of defense counsel, Vaughn A. Blackman:

· On September 14, 2018, Defendants served RPDs, SROGs, FROGs, and RFAs on Plaintiff. (Blackman Decl., Ex. A.) On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff served deficient responses. (Id., Ex. F.) On June 7, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ 6 motions to compel further responses to the discovery and ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses within 20 days. (Id., Ex. M.) The Court awarded sanctions to Defendants in the sum of $4,378.80, and stayed the sanctions until July 18, 2019 so that Plaintiff had an opportunity to comply with the Court’s order. Despite the Court’s order, Plaintiff failed to timely provide responses, and only later provided some responses. (Id., ¶¶25-26.) (On July 18, 2019, the Court lifted the stay and ordered Plaintiff to pay the sanctions.)

· On February 14, 2019, Defendant served more discovery requests on Plaintiff. (Id., Exs. V-Z, AA, BB.) On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff served responses to the RFAs only. (Id., Exs. EE-FF.) On October 18, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel (initial) responses to SROG and RPD and responses were due within 30 days. The Court awarded sanctions to Defendants in the sum of $3,117.00.

· Plaintiff represented it would provide further responses by December 23, 2019. (Id., Exs. T-U.)

Defendants move for terminating sanctions arguing that Plaintiff has not violated the Court’s orders made on two separate hearing dates regarding various discovery motions. As of the filing date of the motion (December 20, 2019), Defendants state that they are not in receipt of any further discovery responses. In their notice of non-opposition filing (filed January 8, 2020), Mr. Blackman provides his supplemental declaration stating that he is not in receipt of an opposition brief to this motion and that he is not in receipt or any additional discovery responses from Plaintiff or production of documents as ordered by the Court. (Suppl. Blackman Decl., ¶¶3-4.)

Despite numerous opportunities for Plaintiff to provide responses to the various sets of discovery, Plaintiff has still failed to provide responses in compliance with its discovery obligations and the Court’s orders. In light of Plaintiff’s conduct and lack of opposition to this motion, the Court is unaware of whether Plaintiff intends to comply with the Court’s orders.

Nevertheless, the Court is concerned that ful terminating sanctions would do more damage than is warranted by the failure to make discovery.

Issue and Evidence Sanctions

In the moving papers, Defendants seek issue and evidentiary sanctions on 17 matters. (See Mot. at pp.13-14.) Defendants’ alternative request for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions is granted in part as follows:

1. The Complaint is stricken.

2. The Plaintiff is prevented from introducing into evidence any document not produced to date, and from calling any witness that has not been identified in its discovery responses to date.

B. Monetary Sanctions

CCP §2023.030(a) states: “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

The Court awards further monetary sanctions in favor of Defendants in the amount of $5,000.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants GGG and Hanson Trust’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted in part. The Court strikes Plaintiff’s operative complaint.

The requests for issue/evidentiary sanctions and monetary sanctions is granted in part. Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order.