This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/22/2021 at 19:02:12 (UTC).

MBR ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC, ET AL. VS IGNITE BEVERAGES, INC.

Case Summary

On 11/20/2020 MBR ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against IGNITE BEVERAGES, 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 GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4749

  • Filing Date:

    11/20/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY KEOSIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

MBR ADVISORY SERVICES LLC

SCG ADVISORY SERVICES LLC

RATNER MATTHEW

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

IGNITE BEVERAGES INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

MURPHY PAUL D.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

ELLIS RYAN ANDREW

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/28/2023
  • Hearing03/28/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2023
  • Hearing03/20/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2023
  • Hearing01/20/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2022
  • Hearing02/17/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Hearing11/17/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Order TO COMPEL AN UNDERTAKING BY PLAINTIFFS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Scott Rohleder in Support of Motion to Compel Undertaking); Filed by Ignite Beverages, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Ryan Ellis in Support of Motion to Compel Undertaking); Filed by Ignite Beverages, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • DocketMotion for Order (to Compel Undertaking by Plaintiffs); Filed by Ignite Beverages, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Seal (Portions of Cross-Complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • DocketOrder (Defendant and Cross-Complainant's Motion to File Under Seal); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Lodging (of Proposed Redacted Complaint); Filed by MBR Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff); SCG Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketOrder ([Proposed] Order Granting Application of Frank T.M. Catalina to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice For Plaintiffs MBR Advisory Services, LLC And SCG Advisory Services, LLC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketApplication to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice; Filed by MBR Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff); SCG Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • DocketMotion to Seal (for an Order to File Portions of the Complaint Under Seal Pursuant to CA Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551); Filed by MBR Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff); SCG Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MBR Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff); SCG Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by MBR Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff); SCG Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by MBR Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff); SCG Advisory Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STCV44749 Hearing Date: August 13, 2021 Dept: 61

Defendant\r\nand Cross-Complainant Ignite Beverages, Inc.’s Motion to File Under Seal is\r\nDENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nMOTION TO\r\nFILE UNDER SEAL

\r\n\r\n

The\r\ncourt may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds\r\nfacts that establish:

\r\n\r\n

(1)\r\nThere exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access\r\nto the record;

\r\n\r\n

(2)\r\nThe overriding interest supports sealing the record;

\r\n\r\n

(3)\r\nA substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be\r\nprejudiced if the record is not sealed;

\r\n\r\n

(4)\r\nThe proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

\r\n\r\n

(5)\r\nNo less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

\r\n\r\n

(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule\r\n2.550, subd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

A party moving to seal records must make a\r\nsufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access\r\nto the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Ignite Beverages, Inc. moves to file portions of\r\nits complaint under seal, and to offer a redacted complaint to be filed\r\npublicly. Plaintiffs argue that portions of the complaint should be sealed\r\nbecause the contracts that form the basis of the claims at issue contain a\r\nconfidentiality clause as to the terms of the agreement. (Motion at pp. 3–4.)\r\nDefendant concedes, however, that this motion is brought to prevent\r\nhypothetical prejudice to Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, not any concrete\r\nprejudice that they will suffer if the unredacted complaint is made public.\r\n(Motion at pp. 3–4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This motion cannot be granted because the prejudice\r\nidentified is entirely hypothetical. Although confidentiality provisions in\r\ncontracts may form a basis to claim an “overriding interest” justifying the\r\nsealing of records, “[b]road allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples\r\nor articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” (McNair v. National Collegiate\r\nAthletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 35.) Parties may not have\r\nrecords sealed by stipulation, and for a confidentiality agreement to furnish a\r\nbasis for sealing a record, there must be “a specific showing of serious\r\ninjury.” (Id. at p. 36.) No showing has been made here.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Motion to Seal is DENIED.

'

Case Number: 20STCV44749    Hearing Date: March 02, 2021    Dept: 61

  1. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

A party moving to seal records must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.)

Plaintiffs move to file portions of their complaint under seal, and to offer a redacted complaint to be filed publicly. Plaintiffs argue that portions of the complaint should be sealed because the contracts that form the basis of the claims at issue contain a confidentiality clause as to the terms of the agreement. (Motion at pp. 3–4.) Plaintiffs concede, however, that this motion is brought to prevent hypothetical prejudice to Defendants, not any concrete prejudice that they will suffer if the unredacted complaint is made public. (Motion at pp. 3–4.)

The motion cannot be granted. First, although Plaintiffs have filed a document entitled “notice of lodging of proposed redacted complaint,” the court presently does not possess any redacted complaint, and none is attached with the notice of lodging. Thus the court cannot determine the scope of the redactions that Plaintiffs are proposing. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not lodged the contract itself, meaning the court cannot determine the scope of the confidentiality provision that Plaintiffs seek to preserve.

Finally, even if Plaintiffs had presented the contract and the redacted complaint, denial would still be proper because Plaintiffs’ prejudice is entirely hypothetical. Although confidentiality provisions in contracts may form a basis to claim an “overriding interest” justifying the sealing of records, “[b]road allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” (McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 35.) Parties may not have records sealed by stipulation, and for a confidentiality agreement to furnish a basis for sealing a record, there must be “a specific showing of serious injury.” (Id. at p. 36.) No showing has been made here.

The Motion to Seal is DENIED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ELLIS RYAN ANDREW