Online Brands, LLC v. SJS Group, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: July 16, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 3 25CV468863 Sinpo Corp. v. Plaintiff Sinpo Corp.’s motion to compel initial responses to form Raksham, LLC interrogatories, set one; special interrogatories, set one; and requests for production, set one. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. Defendant did not respond to the discovery requests. On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to respond to the requested discovery, without objections, no later than August 17, 2026.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant and its counsel of record are jointly and severally responsible to pay plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $660 ($60 filing fee plus two hours of attorney fees at $300/hour) no later than August 17, 2026. Plaintiff does not explain the basis for its claimed $90 filing fee. The court will prepare the order. Line 4 23CV423336 Online Brands, LLC Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. v. SJS Group, LLC Line 5 24CV454280 Channel Partners Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling.

Capital, LLC v. Sukhjeev Singh et al.

Calendar Line 4 Case Name: Online Brands LLC v. SJS Group LLC Case No.: 23CV423336

Plaintiff Online Brands, LLC’s renewed motion to withdraw deemed admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300.) Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by defendant SJS Group, LLC.

The requests were deemed admitted by order dated April 10, 2025. That order granted a noticed motion filed by defendant. Plaintiff neither opposed that motion nor attended the April 2025 hearing on it. The court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s first motion to withdraw those admissions by order in October 2025, finding that plaintiff “failed to submit with its motion any declaration or other evidence.” (Order re: Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions, 10/28/25, at 3:7-15.) Because the previous motion was denied without prejudice, the court will treat this as a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 instead of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

“The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).) “Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section [Code of Civil Procedure section] 2033.300 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v.

Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.) A trial “court’s discretion to deny a motion under the statute is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Id. at pp. 1420-1421.) A court granting a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 “may impose conditions on the granting of the motion.”

Those conditions can include allowing additional discovery as well as an award of costs and attorney fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (c); Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1227-1228 [Code of Civil Procedure “section 2033.300’s reference to costs should be read to include attorney fees”].)

The instant motion is supported by a declaration of counsel identifying several mistakes that counsel argues are excusable, including: counsel’s mistaken belief that unverified objections to the subject discovery were adequate; counsel’s mistaken belief that declarations responding to other discovery somehow “mooted and nullified” the motion; and counsel’s inadvertent failure to calendar the hearing on the motion to deem admitted. (Cole dec., filed 12/10/25, ¶¶ 4-49.) Add to that counsel’s failure to support the initial motion to withdraw admissions with any evidence. The foregoing errors are significant. But because it is not clear that the mistakes were all inexcusable, the court concludes that the admissions were the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

As to substantial prejudice, defendant’s argument about prejudice focuses largely on their need to conduct additional discovery if the admissions are withdrawn. But trial is not yet set. And the statute recognizes the court’s discretion to award costs and attorney fees as a condition of granting relief. The court finds defendant will not be substantially prejudiced by granting the motion to withdraw admissions. 13

Plaintiff argues there is “no valid basis for an award of fees or costs.” (Reply, at p. 8:9- 10.) To the contrary, plaintiff’s mistakes have required the court and counsel to devote a substantial amount of time to something that could have been resolved without motion practice had plaintiff provided code-compliant responses to the requests for admission. Defendant is entitled to its “costs of any additional discovery” related to the withdrawn admissions, including reasonable attorney fees related to that discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (c)(2).) Defendant is also entitled to its reasonable attorney fees spent opposing both the instant renewed motion to withdraw and the original motion to withdraw. Once those attorney fees and costs are ascertained, defendant must file a noticed motion to recover them.

Plaintiff’s renewed motion to withdraw admissions is GRANTED. Plaintiff must provide verified, code-compliant responses to the requests for admissions no later than August 17, 2026. Defendant will be awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs, which will be determined by separately filed noticed motion once the amount of those attorney fees and costs are ascertained.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

14