DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CMCV02029·la·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing in about 6 hoursDENIED

MW Fingerhut, LLC v. Valerie Trading, Inc.

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and an award of monetary sanctions against defaulted defendant Valerie Trading, Inc.

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
A
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$31,025$1,800

Parties

PlaintiffMW Fingerhut, LLC
DefendantValerie Trading, Inc.
OtherLisa D. Simantob

Attorneys

Jordan R. Victor(Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP)for Plaintiff
Andrew A. Wood(Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP)for Plaintiff
Lisa D. Simantobfor Defendant

Ruling

(Compton Courthouse: Dept. A) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT A LAW AND MOTION RULINGS INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must: 1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and 3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u i/main.aspx’casetype=civil

responses to requests for production of documents and an award of monetary sanctions against defaulted defendant Valerie Trading, Inc. is denied.

As to Valerie Trading, Inc., not only did plaintiff not object to the court striking its answer on July 15, 2026, plaintiff requested and obtained entry of default against it July 31, 2026. As of July 15, 2026, and in any event no later than upon entry of default, defendant lacked standing to participate in the litigation, including with respect to discovery.

In addition to plaintiff's unfounded request for discovery responses and monetary sanctions against defendant, plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $31,025 against Lisa D. Simantob, defendant's former counsel. Attorney Simantob was relieved as counsel for Valerie Trading, Inc. by the court on April 7, 2026. That order became effective April 10, 2026 upon filing proof of service of the court's order on defendant.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff was required to specifically identify attorney Simantob in the notice of motion as an individual against whom monetary sanctions were sought. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 2023.040.) It failed to do so, and its subsequent notice of errata did not cure this defect. Moreover, plaintiff does not establish that counsel adequately meet and conferred before bringing this motion against attorney Simantob, or that attorney Simantob engaged in discovery abuse prior to being relieved as counsel.

The court concludes the motion constitutes a misuse of the discovery process, and awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,800 jointly and severally against plaintiff MW Fingerhut, LLC and its counsel of record, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, Jordan R. Victor and Andrew A. Wood and in favor of attorney Lisa D. Simantob, pursuant to Code of Civ. Procedure sections 2023.020, 2023.030 and 2031.310(h) payable within thirty days of entry of this order. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share