This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 23:43:51 (UTC).

PIERCEY WEST, INC. VS N/S CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 10/25/2017 PIERCEY WEST, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against N/S CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BRIAN F. GASDIA and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6663

  • Filing Date:

    10/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BRIAN F. GASDIA

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

PIEERCEY WEST INC.

HONDA WORLD DOWNEY

PIERCEY WEST INC. DBA HONDA WORLD DOWNEY

Defendant

N/S CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KOLAR & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES OF

RUNGE BENJAMIN THOMAS

Defendant Attorneys

BRADLEY & GMELICH LLP

ROSS JONATHAN ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/25/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Unknown

10/25/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/6/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

3/22/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/28/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/5/2018: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

8/23/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration

8/23/2018: Declaration

Minute Order

10/18/2018: Minute Order

Order

10/18/2018: Order

Reply

10/25/2018: Reply

Objection

10/25/2018: Objection

Minute Order

11/1/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/3/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

3/25/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

4/19/2019: Minute Order

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department R, Brian F. Gasdia, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (to continue trial and all trial based deadlines); Filed by PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 12/13/2017
  • Motion to Strike; Filed by N/S CORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • Affidavit of Prejudice - Challenge; Filed by PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Notice; Filed by HONDA WORLD DOWNEY (Legacy Party); PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Notice; Filed by HONDA WORLD DOWNEY (Legacy Party); PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by HONDA WORLD DOWNEY (Legacy Party); PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by HONDA WORLD DOWNEY (Legacy Party); PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Summons; Filed by HONDA WORLD DOWNEY (Legacy Party); PIERCEY WEST, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066663    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: SEC

PIERCEY WEST, INC. v. N/S CORPORATION

CASE NO.:  vc066663

HEARING:  10/29/19

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant N/S Corporation’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents Nos. 7, 12, and 13 at deposition of Aaron Mayfield is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give NOTICE.

Defendant N/S Corporation moves to compel documents requested at the deposition of Aaron Mayfield pursuant to CCP 2025.480.

(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (CCP 2025.480(a) and (b).)

The present action arises from the sale of a car wash and dryer system, which allegedly scratched vehicles. At Aaron Mayfield’s deposition, Defendant discovered that the deponent failed to produce documents responsive to Nos. 7, 12, and 13. These categories request documents supporting Plaintiff’s claim for damages. Mayfield testified that a total of 40-50 vehicles were scratched by the car wash, and that such scratches would be documented in repair orders. (Ex. C 62:13-25, 79:13-18.) Yet, no documents were provided in response to Nos. 7, 12, and 13. (Sodaify Decl, ¶¶ 4, 9.)

The court finds that Movant failed to adequately meet and confer. No meet and confer declaration was attached to the motion. In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s meet and confer argument is premature because the court “ordered the parties to meet and confer prior to the newly set hearing date” with respect to its ex parte application. (Reply, 3:8.) However, that Order actually stated, “counsel are ordered to make further efforts to resolve the issues presented in the motion…after exhausting those efforts, [if] court intervention is needed, counsel may appear and argue the merits… if counsel are unable to informally resolve the discovery motions at issue, then counsel are instructed to submit a joint statement outlining the remaining issues.” (10/4/19 Ex Parte Order.) This court is not in receipt of any declaration or joint statement, evidencing the fact that Movant attempted to informally resolve the issues in this motion.

Further, the request is improper because Mayfield was deposed in his individual capacity, and not as a custodian of the documents or a PMK.

Finally, the documents requested were previously produced on 3/30/18, in response to request for production of documents, set one. Plaintiff had produced numerous repair orders, and the only information redacted were customer names and contact information. (Runge Decl., ¶ 9.) On 5/25/18, Plaintiff also produced invoices from Bumper ‘R’ Us, Inc., which show the cost of repair. (Id. at ¶10, Ex. D.)

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

Case Number: VC066663    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: SEC

PIERCEY WEST, INC. v. N/S CORPORATION

CASE NO.:  VC066663

HEARING: 10/24/19

JUDGE: RAUL A. SAHAGUN

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Depositions of JAY SHENK and ELIAS HERNANDEZ are DENIED as MOOT.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set three) is DENIED.

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set three) is GRANTED.

IV. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set four) is DENIED without prejudice.

V. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions (set three) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

VI. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (set four) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Opposing Party to give notice.

Counsel are advised that their meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters stating their respective positions. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.)

Motions to Compel Depositions

The Motions to Compel the Depositions of JAY SHENK and ELIAS HERNANDEZ are denied as MOOT. The deposition of Mr. Hernandez occurred on October 10, 2019 and the deposition of Mr. Shenk occurred on October 15, 2019.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and Counsels’ declarations and finds that there is no reason that this matter could not have been resolved without Court intervention. There is no indication that Defendant refused to produce the deponents at any time. Rather, Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer with Defendant over the scheduling of the depositions, resulting in unnecessary motion practice.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set three)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set three) is denied for the reasons stated under the Court’s ruling as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions (set three).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set three)

According to the Joint Statement FILED by the parties on October 16, 2019, Defendant intends to serve Supplemental Responses to RFP Nos. 51, 52, 62, 64, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 104, 105, 107, and 108. As of the October 22, 2019, there is no indication that Supplemental Responses have been served. The Motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 51, 52, 62, 64, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 104, 105, 107, and 108.

Plaintiff’s Motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 70, 73, 74, 81, 82, 91, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 102, and 106. Pursuant to CCP §2031.310(b), a motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” Here, Plaintiff’s motion was timely, and has properly put in issue the objections and deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to the identified RPDs. The Court finds that Defendant has not justified the objections asserted therein. Defendant should be able to answer the Requests based on personal knowledge. Defendant’s objections of “argumentative” to the RPDs at issue are not well-taken and do not excuse Defendant from its obligation to provide truthful discovery responses.

Given Defendant’s seeming willingness to provide Plaintiff with supplemental responses, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion to the Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set four)

Plaintiff’s Motion to the Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set four) is DENIED without prejudice. According to the Joint Statement FILED by the parties on October 16, 2019, Defendant served Plaintiff with supplemental responses on October 15, 2019. The supplemental responses apparently consist of “a CD containing more than fifty (50) documents, four (4) videos and over one hundred (100) photographs.” (Joint Statement 3:5-6.) Defendant’s supplemental responses are not before the Court, and Plaintiff concedes that it has not had the opportunity to review Defendant’s responses. (See Joint Statement 4:6-7.)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions (set three)

According to the Joint Statement FILED by the parties on October 16, 2019, Defendant intends to serve Supplemental Responses to RFA Nos. 56, 57, 62, 84, 85, 86, and 95. As of the October 22, 2019, there is no indication that Supplemental Responses have been served. The Motion is GRANTED as to RFA Nos. 56, 57, 62, 84, 85, 86, and 95.

A party may move to compel further responses to RFAs on the grounds that the answers are evasive or incomplete. (CCP §2033.290(a).) If a timely motion to compel further responses has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to Defendant’s responses to RFA Nos. 40, 41, 43,52, 54, 55, 59, 61, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 80-83, 89, 90, 91, 92, and 93. “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (CCP §2033.220(c).) Here, Defendant’s responses to the RFAs at issue state, “After a reasonable inquiry into the circumstances, Responding party lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny this request.” This response is sufficient, and a further response is unwarranted.

Defendant is hereby ORDERED to serve further verified responses to RFA Nos56, 57, 62, 84, 85, 86, and 95 without objections, within 10 days of the date of this hearing. Plaintiff’s motion as to RFAs Nos. 40, 41, 43,52, 54, 55, 59, 61, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 80-83, 89, 90, 91, 92, and 93is denied.

Where the motion is granted in some respects, and denied in some respects, both parties requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (set four) “If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is…incomplete…or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response.” (CCP §2030.300(a).)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories (set four) is granted as to SI Nos. 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 144, 145, 146, and 147. The Court finds the interrogatories seek relevant information, or at a minimum are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. The relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence standards are applied liberally. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (See Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

The motion is denied as MOOT as to the remained of the interrogatories identified by Plaintiff in its Separate Statement. According to the parties’ Joint Statement, those interrogatories have been resolved by further meet and confer efforts.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to serve further verified responses to SI Nos. SI Nos. 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 144, 145, 146, and 147 without objections, within 10 days of the date of this hearing.

Where the motion is granted in some respects, and denied in some respects, both parties requests for monetary sanctions are denied.