Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/23/2021 at 21:42:13 (UTC).

RAKESH KOTHARI VS GOVIND R. VAGHASHIA ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/22/2017 RAKESH KOTHARI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GOVIND R VAGHASHIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7612

  • Filing Date:

    11/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KOTHARI RAKESH

Defendants and Not Classified By Court

VAGHASHIA GOVIND R.

VAGHASHIA MITA AN INDIVIDUAL

TRAVELODGE BURBANK

VAGHASHIA PRASHANT T. AN INDIVIDUAL

QUALITY INN BURBANK AIRPORT

QUALITY INN AND SUITES CAMARILLO

VAGHASHIA SONAL AN INDIVIDUAL

VAGHASHIA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED

VAGHASHIA GOVIND R. AN INDIVIDUAL

VAGHASHIA MITA

VAGHASHIA PRASHANT

VAGHASHIA SONAL

VAGHASHIA GOVIND

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GERALD O. EGBASE

EGBASE GERALD O.

USUDE JOVI GERALD

Defendant Attorneys

JOVI G. USUDE LAW OFFICE OF

ALFRED O. ANYIA LAW OFFICES OF

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. HORN

ENENSTEIN PHAM & GLASS

PHAM TERI THUY

ANYIA ALFRED OSHIOMELE

 

Court Documents

Appeal - Remittitur - Affirmed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - AFFIRMED B292209

7/15/2020: Appeal - Remittitur - Affirmed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - AFFIRMED B292209

Writ of Execution - WRIT OF EXECUTION (LOS ANGELES)

7/16/2020: Writ of Execution - WRIT OF EXECUTION (LOS ANGELES)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A VS. PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORIT

11/18/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A VS. PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORIT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECL. OF DUE DILIGENCE RE DEBTOR EXAM OF KOTHARI

1/7/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECL. OF DUE DILIGENCE RE DEBTOR EXAM OF KOTHARI

Separate Statement

1/29/2021: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

1/29/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST...)

2/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST...)

Notice - NOTICE OF OSC

11/22/2017: Notice - NOTICE OF OSC

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

2/2/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-02-05 00:00:00

2/5/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-02-05 00:00:00

Notice of Related Case

5/22/2018: Notice of Related Case

Case Management Statement

5/29/2018: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: CROSS-COMPL FLD- NO SUMMONS ISSUED

6/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: CROSS-COMPL FLD- NO SUMMONS ISSUED

Motion re: - Motion re: Motion for Relief From Stay of Discovery

3/4/2019: Motion re: - Motion re: Motion for Relief From Stay of Discovery

Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment

12/27/2018: Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment

Legacy Document -

7/20/2018: Legacy Document -

Legacy Document -

9/5/2018: Legacy Document -

Legacy Document -

9/24/2018: Legacy Document -

134 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/02/2021
  • Hearing06/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion - Other (for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs pursuant to Order after Appeal filed on behalf of Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs purs...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketReply (PLAINTIFF?S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS? OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AWARD FOR ATTORNEYS? FEES AND COSTS AFTER APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;); Filed by RAKESH KOTHARI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination (and Enforcement of Judgment as to Judgment Debtor Rakesh Kothari filed on behalf of Govind R. Vaghashia, et al.) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order (to Defendants' Request for Production of Documents, Set Two filed on behalf of Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Further Responses by Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari to Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two and Request for Sanctions of $5,890.50) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Protective Order to Defendants' Request...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Withdrawal of Debtor Exam and Request to Recall Warrant); Filed by GOVIND VAGHASHIA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketOpposition (DEFENDANTS? OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS? FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO ORDER AFTER APPEAL; AND DECLARATION OF TERI T. PHAM IN SUPPORT THEREOF); Filed by GOVIND VAGHASHIA (Defendant); SONAL, VAGHASHIA (Defendant); VAGHASHIA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
234 More Docket Entries
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketRequest (FOR COPIES OF COMPLAINT & CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ); Filed by Interested Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketRequest; Filed by Interested Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketNotice (OF OSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067612    Hearing Date: March 05, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar:    14  
Date:          3/5/2021  
Case No: EC067612 Trial Date:  None Set
Case Name: Kothari v. Vaghashia, et al.
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON APPEAL
Moving Party:          Plaintiff Rakeshi Kothari    
Responding Party: Defendants Govind Vaghashia, Sonal Vaghashia and Vaghashia 
Family Limited Partnership 
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees as prevailing party following appeal 
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari alleges that in July of 2014 he entered a written agreement with defendants Govind Vaghashia dba Quality Inn and Suites, Sonal Vaghashia dba Travelodge Burbank, Prashant Vaghashia dba Quality Inn Burbank Airport, Mita Vaghashia and Vaghasia Family Partnership Limited, the owners of hotels/motels in Southern California, wherein it was agreed that plaintiff would be responsible for the management of defendants’ Quality Inn hotel/motel in Burbank, and their Quality Inn and Suites hotel/motel located in Camarillo.  Plaintiff alleges that under the agreement he was entitled to an hourly wage and a 10% commission of gross revenue for each hotel/motel, to be paid three years after entering the contract.   It is also alleged that plaintiff would be allowed to move with his family to defendants’ real property located close to the Quality Inn Burbank, with plaintiff to take possession of the rented property for the seven-year duration of the contract without payment of rent and utilities.  The parties agreed that plaintiff could live at the rented property until he ceased to work under the contract or was terminated for any justifiable reason, and that if terminated, plaintiff would be entitled to twelve months’ notice to vacate the rented property.  
Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff performed under the contract, significantly increasing the gross revenues of the hotels/motels, and in January of 2015 entered into a separate agreement for plaintiff to take over and manage defendants’ Travelodge Burbank, which also included an agreement for paying a commission.  
Plaintiff alleges that defendants would pay plaintiff late or not pay the monthly agreed upon stipends, and did not pay plaintiff overtime, or the required minimum wage.
It is also alleged that defendant Govind ordered plaintiff to obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage in his own name, and when plaintiff declined began to harass plaintiff by threatening to terminate him and calling him names in the presence of other employees.   Plaintiff alleges that he was made to sign papers in blank at the beginning of his employment, as Govind had a practice of taking signatures of new employees and later using those signatures on agreements drafted by Govind.   Plaintiff alleges that defendant instructed plaintiff to commit acts that violated the law such as preparing false statements to be submitted in workers compensation claims, or forging documents in civil cases.   Plaintiff alleges that when he refused to commit the illegal acts, defendants decided to terminate his employment, and have otherwise breached the contract by failing to pay the commissions due.   
Plaintiff alleges that after he filed the initial complaint in this action he was inundated with numerous requests by defendants that plaintiff dismiss his lawsuit, and on March 8, 2018, plaintiff received a letter terminating his employment without justifiable reasons, but because plaintiff was about to testify regarding defendant Govind’s fraud in forging documents and signatures of employees who sued defendants for violation of various wage laws.  On the same day plaintiff’s employment was terminated, defendant Govind posted a thirty-day notice for plaintiff and his family to vacate and quit the rented property.   
Plaintiff also alleges that in a further effort to harass plaintiff, defendant Govind filed a request for restraining order seeking to restrain plaintiff from his place of residence, but the court denied the request for a temporary restraining order until the day of the hearing, and before the hearing Govind dismissed the case, because it was baseless.  
Defendants Prashant Vaghashia and Mita Vaghashia have filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity and declaratory relief against cross-defendants Govind Vaghashia and the Vaghashia Family Partnership Limited, alleging that cross-complainants were in no way connected with the termination of plaintiff’s employment or of any of the acts or conduct complained of in the complaint, but that any injuries or damages alleged will be founded on the fault of cross-defendants.  
Defendants Vaghashia Family Limited Partnership, Govind Vaghashia and Sonal Vaghasia filed a special motion to strike the fifth and tenth causes of action of the first amended complaint (anti-SLAPP), which was heard on June 22, 2018.  The motion was granted as to the fifth cause of action for Injunction Relief and denied as to the tenth cause of action for Harassment. The motion was also denied with respect to a request to strike specific allegations in the pleading in connection with the harassment claim.  
Defendants appealed the denial of the special motion to strike.  Remittitur was received by this court on July 15, 2020.  The court of appeal, in an unpublished decision, affirmed the trial court’s order.  The disposition states, “The order is affirmed. Rakesh Kothari is awarded his costs on appeal.”   
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Kothari seeks attorneys’ fees for the expense of defending against the appeal, as well as for bringing this motion for fees. 
With respect to attorneys’ fees as costs, CRC Rule 8.278(d)(2) states: “Unless the court orders otherwise, an award of costs neither includes attorney’s fees on appeal nor precludes a party from seeking them under rule 3.1702.”   
Under CCP § 1032, a prevailing party in an action is entitled to allowable costs.    
Under CPC section 1032(b), “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.”  Section 1033.5 (a) provides that an allowable cost under §1032 includes:
“(10) Attorney’s fees, when authorized by any of the following:
(A) Contract
(B) Statute 
(C) Law.”    
Here, the motion curiously does not indicate how attorney’s fees are authorized in this case.  No contract, statute, or law is specified in the moving papers pursuant to which fees, as opposed to costs, would be authorized.  The motion merely argues that the appellate court entered a ruling that plaintiff is the prevailing party.  This is not sufficient alone to give rise to grounds for an award of attorney’s fees as costs. 
The moving papers do not reference the statute under which fees could be available, CCP § 425.16, pertaining to special motions to strike, which provides, in pertinent part:
“(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.  If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.”
[Emphasis added].
 A prevailing plaintiff must therefore show the motion is frivolous or solely intended to cause delay to be entitled to fees.  The court of appeal in Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, in determining whether the anti-SLAPP statutory scheme provides for reciprocal fee awards, noted:
“A plaintiff who prevails by defeating the motion to strike is not entitled to recover fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute simply by prevailing on the motion. Under section 425.16, subdivision (c) the plaintiff may recover fees and costs only by showing that the defendant's special motion to strike was frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay within the meaning of section 128.5.”
Dowling, at 1432.  
At a minimum, the burden should be fairly high for a prevailing plaintiff or cross-complainant, since such a party does not enjoy the status of a prevailing defendant in protecting public policy. 
The moving papers here merely argue that plaintiff is entitled to fees by prevailing on the motion and the appeal of that motion, which is not a sufficient ground for an award of fees to a prevailing plaintiff.  The motion accordingly fails to meet plaintiff’s burden on this motion to show entitlement to fees under statute, or to support a trial court finding that the motion to strike or even the appeal of that motion was frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.  The motion accordingly is denied. 
The opposition also argues that the motion should be denied as untimely.  The argument is based on CRC Rule 3.1702, which provides, in pertinent part:
“(b) Attorney's fees before trial court judgment
(1) Time for motion
A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court--including attorney's fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial court--must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case or under rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case….
(c) Attorney's fees on appeal
(1) Time for motion
A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees on appeal--other than the attorney's fees on appeal claimed under (b)--under a statute or contract requiring the court to determine entitlement to the fees, the amount of the fees, or both, must be served and filed within the time for serving and filing the memorandum of costs under rule 8.278(c)(1) in an unlimited civil case or under rule 8.891(c)(1) in a limited civil case.”
The argument is based on subdivision (c) of the statute, when the fees sought here appear to be sought as “attorney's fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial court,” under subdivision (b).    
CRC Rule 8.104, pertaining to unlimited civil actions, provides that an appeal must be filed 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party a Notice of Entry of judgment, or the party serves or is served by a party with a document entitled Notice of Entry of judgment, or within 180 days after entry of judgment.  CRC Rule 8.108 expands the deadlines in certain instances not applicable here, such as where a motion for new trial, to vacate the judgment, for JNOV or for reconsideration are filed.  
There were no notices served here with respect to the appeal, and it would appear that the 180-day time limit applies.  
Here, the remittitur was issued July 15, 2020.  
Any motion for fees was accordingly to be filed within 180 days, by January 11, 2021.   
This motion was filed on October 28, 2020, with a proof of service showing it was served on that date as well.  Evidently the motion was not served that date, but plaintiff agreed to continue the hearing due to improper service.  [Pham Decl., para. 5].  There is no indication of when service was actually made, but no showing that it was not before January 15, 2021.  The court under the circumstances will not deny the motion as untimely but will deny it on its merits. 
The opposition also requests that the court set an OSC hearing to determine whether plaintiff and counsel should be sanctioned for bringing this frivolous motion in violation of CCP section 128.7.  If defendants are interested in such relief, such relief should have been sought under the statutory provisions of CCP section 128.7.  The court will not issue an OSC here. 
RULING:
Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to Order After Appeal is DENIED. 
The motion fails to establish the entitlement to fees, as opposed to costs, as the prevailing party on the subject appeal. Specifically, no contract, statute or law authorizing such fees is cited or discussed in the moving papers.  To the extent fees are sought under the statutory provisions governing special motions to strike, plaintiff has failed to address this statute, and has failed to submit any legal argument or analysis to support a trial court finding that the special motion to strike was frivolous or was solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, as required under CCP section 425.16.
Request in the opposition for OSC is DENIED.
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 

Case Number: EC067612    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: D


Case Number: EC068454    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar:    20
Date:       2/26/2021
Case No:      EC068454 Trial Date: July 26, 2021
Case Name: Artisan Cheese Gallery, LLC v. Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc.  
MOTIONS TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (2)
(CCP § 2031.320, 2023.010 et seq)
Moving Party: Plaintiff Artisan Cheese Gallery, LLC 
Responding Party: Defendant Shelley Janson 
Defendant Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc. 
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Orders compelling compliance with document production by producing documents 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff Artisan Cheese Gallery, LLC alleges that in April 2015 plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell to defendant Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc. a retail wine and cheese specialty store in Studio City.  The purchase, promissory note and security agreement were guaranteed by defendant’s Artisan’s principal, defendant Shelley Janson.   
Plaintiff alleges that Artisan failed to make payments on the original note, as well as for perishable inventory and other charges, disputing the amounts then due and owing, as the result of which the parties submitted the dispute to mediation.  The mediation resulted in a Stipulation for Settlement, which modified that repayment and interest terms in a second note, and a new security agreement, and another personal guaranty.   Plaintiff alleges that defendants have breached the settlement agreement by again defaulting in their obligations under the original and second notes. 
ANALYSIS:
These motions are brought by plaintiff to compel each of the defendants to produce documents pursuant to their written representations that they would produce for inspection certain documents and things.   The motions are brought under CCP section 2031.320, which provides, in pertinent part:
“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying…thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying…in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”
The motions indicate that in response to requests for production with respect to gift certificates, defendants represented that they would not release custody or original documents but would make documents available for in-person inspection by plaintiff and its counsel, but despite this promise, have failed to produce the responsive records.   [Manning Decl. para. 3, Ex. C].  
This appears sufficient to show that the parties filing responses to the demands for inspection thereafter failed to permit inspection in accordance with the statements of compliance. 
There has been no timely opposition to the motions, and plaintiff has filed Notice of No Oppositions indicating defendants have not filed or served timely written oppositions to the two motions.   The relief appears appropriately sought and the motions accordingly are granted. 
Sanctions 
Plaintiff seeks sanctions.  CCP § 2031.320 (b) provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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.” 
Under CCP § 2023.010, misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where there has been a misuse of the discovery process, under Section 2023.030(a), 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.”  
Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”  (Emphasis added). 
The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.  
Here, defendants failed to comply with their obligations to produce documents as promised, and have not opposed the motions, so have not met their burden of showing that conduct was justified.   Defendants should be responsible for reimbursing the cost of having to bring these motions.   Sanctions are awarded to plaintiff.  The sanctions requested are $4,320 for two motions, which is $2,160 for each motion.   This amount is high given the duplicative nature of the motions, and the lack of opposition, and the brief notice concerning that circumstance in lieu of replies.  The court awards total attorney time for the one motion by defendant Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc. in the amount of 4 hours at $400.00 per hour for total attorneys’ fees of $1,600.00 plus costs.  
RULING:
[No Opposition]
UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Compliance with Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, to Defendant Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc. is GRANTED. 
Defendant Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc. is ordered to produce documents or permit the promised inspection and copying in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, Demands Nos. 1 and 2.  Production or Inspection is to occur within five days at a site designated by plaintiff.   
Monetary sanctions requested by moving party:  Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motions is $1,600.00 (4.0 hours @ $400/hour) (5.25 hours requested) plus costs of $60 filing fee for each motion [Amount Requested $2,160], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Artisan Cheese Gallery, LLC, and against defendant Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc., payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2031.320 (b), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).
The Court notes that after the deadline for filing opposition and after the Court had considered the two discovery motions unopposed, defendant Shelley Janson filed with the Court a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, indicating that a bankruptcy case filing has been made by defendant Shelley Marlene Janson on February 19, 2021.  No such bankruptcy stay evidently applies to defendant Artisan Cheese Gallery, Inc. 
The Motion to Compel Compliance with Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, to Defendant Shelley Janson ONLY is STAYED.  
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VAGHASHIA GOVIND is a litigant

Latest cases where QUALITY INN & SUITES is a litigant

Latest cases where VAGHASHIA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP A NEVADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer EGBASE GERALD O.