| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; Defendant’s Motion to Compel
TENTATIVE RULINGS Perzow Antiaging General Partnership v. Philip Lee Miller, et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendant’s Motion to Compel
The Case Management Conference following the motions hearing on April 24, 2026, is MAINTAINED.
Hearing Date: April 24, 2026
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
The motion by Defendant Philip Lee Miller, M.D. to dismiss this case under Code of Civil Procedure section 367 is DENIED. Both parties' requests for monetary sanctions are also DENIED.
Dr. Miller argues that Plaintiff Perzow Antiaging General Partnership (“Plaintiff”) is a nonexistent entity and therefore lacks standing to pursue this case against him. [Code Civ. Proc. § 367.] To support his claim that Plaintiff does not exist, Dr. Miller states that his search of the California Secretary of State’s records “confirms that neither ‘Perzow Antiaging A general Partnership’ nor ‘Antiaging.com A General Partnership’ exists.” [Motion at 2.]
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Miller’s motion is an improper motion for reconsideration because this issue was raised in Dr. Miller’s demurrer to the operative complaint and was ultimately overruled. [Opp. at 3.] Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Miller’s motion lacks merit because California law clearly establishes that Plaintiff is a real party in interest and therefore has standing to sue. [Id. at 3-4.]
Preliminarily, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the current motion is an improper motion for reconsideration. [Code Civ. Proc. § 1008.] When Dr. Miller demurred to the initial complaint on February 14, 2024, on grounds of lack of standing, the named plaintiff was “Antiaging.com General Partnership.” This motion concerns Dr. Miller’s assertion that Plaintiff “Perzow Antiaging General Partnership” lacks standing. Indeed, “Perzow Antiaging General Partnership” became a named plaintiff in this action over one year after the demurrer order was issued on April 16, 2025. [See Motion to Amend, filed 2/24/25, at 3:2-5; Order on Motion to Amend, filed 4/16/25.] Therefore, Dr. Miller’s demurrer, filed in 2024, and the current motion, filed more than two years later, concern different entities, although they raise similar legal issues.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On the merits, Dr. Miller’s motion fails and is therefore DENIED.
“A partnership is a group of two or more persons who own a business in which all the partners agree to share the profits and losses. [It] can be formed by a written or oral agreement or by an agreement implied by the parties’ conduct.” [CACI No. 3711; see also Corp. Code § 16202, and Eng v. Brown (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 675, 694.] “Whether a partnership or joint venture exists is primarily a factual question to be determined by the trier of fact from the evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom.” [Bank of Cal. v.
Connolly (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 350, 364.] A partnership has the legal capacity to sue and be sued in its own name. [Corp. Code § 16307, subd. (a).] Therefore, a partnership has standing to initiate and defend against legal actions because it qualifies as a real party in interest. [Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc. § 367 (“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.”).]
Here, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff, an alleged partnership, exists based solely on Dr. Miller’s claim that he “personally searched the California Secretary of State business entity database” and found “no record of ‘Perzow Antiaging A General Partnership’ or ‘Antiaging.com A General Partnership.’” [Dr. Miller Decl. at ¶ 2.] This is not surprising because
forming a partnership does not require filing with the state; it automatically exists when two or more people start running a for-profit business together. Consequently, the Plaintiff is a real party in interest, and the motion and request for sanctions are DENIED. [Code Civ. Proc. § 367; Corp. Code § 16307, subd. (a).]
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also DENIED. First, as detailed above, Dr. Miller did not file an improper motion for reconsideration, so no sanctions are justified. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that it satisfied the safe-harbor provisions of Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7 by (1) serving the sanctions motion on Dr. Miller without filing it, (2) waiting 21 days for Dr. Miller to withdraw the motion to dismiss, and (3) filing the sanctions motion at the end of that period. [See Plaintiff’s Bowse Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.] “[T]he safe harbor period is mandatory and the full 21 days must be provided absent a court order shortening that time if sanctions are to be awarded.” [Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, 595.] Therefore, Plaintiff’s sanctions request is DENIED.
For the reasons stated above, Dr. Miller’s motion to dismiss and each party’s request for sanctions are DENIED. Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order in accordance with this Tentative Ruling.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel
The unopposed motion of Defendant Philip Lee Miller, M.D., for an order compelling Plaintiff Perzow Antiaging General Partnership (“Plaintiff”) to respond to his first set of Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Dr. Miller’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. The Court imposes a $60 monetary sanction against Plaintiff for misuse of the discovery process.
In his declaration supporting the motion, Dr. Miller attests that he electronically served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories on December 28, 2025. [Dr. Miller Decl. at ¶ 2.] Additionally, Dr. Miller served the interrogatories “via FedEx Overnight, delivered December 31, 2025.” [Ibid.] Consequently, the responses were due by no later than February 3, 2026. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2016.050, and 1010.6, subd. (a)(3).] Dr. Miller emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to extend the response deadline to February 18, 2026. [Id. at ¶ 5 and Exh. B at 1 (“My subsequent meet-and-confer email extending your deadline to February 18, 2026, was ignored.”).] By the time this motion was filed on February 24, 2026, Plaintiff still had not served its responses to the Special Interrogatories. [Id. at ¶ 6.]
Legal Standards.
Generally, the party that receives the discovery must respond to each question separately, under oath, within 30 days of service extended for service by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically). [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.010, 2030.030, 2030.210, 2030.260, 2016.050, and 1010.6.] If no response is provided, the requesting party can file a motion for an order to compel a response and for monetary sanctions. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.010, 2030.290.] In such cases, there’s no obligation to attempt informal resolution before filing the motion. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.] There is no deadline for filing a motion to compel if responses have not been served. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 410-411.]
The failure to respond in a timely manner waives all objections to the interrogatories. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.] An unverified response is the equivalent of no response at all. [Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.]
If a motion to compel response is filed and the demanding party properly requests monetary sanctions, the Court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against the losing party unless it determines that party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other reasons make the sanction “unjust.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).]
Discussion.
Dr. Miller’s motion is unopposed, and the Court has not been informed whether Plaintiff served complete, objection-free, and verified responses to the Special Interrogatories before issuing this Tentative Ruling. Therefore, Dr. Miller’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Within
15 days of the signed order, Plaintiff shall serve complete, verified, and objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories.
Plaintiff failed to respond to an authorized discovery method. There is no substantial justification for Plaintiff’s conduct, and monetary sanctions are justified. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).] The Court has discretion to impose “reasonable” monetary sanctions. [Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 793-794; Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).] Dr. Miller requests monetary sanctions totaling $500 for “filing fees and administrative costs.” [Dr.
Miller Decl. at ¶ 7.] The filing fee for Plaintiff’s motion is $60. [Gov. Code § 70617, subd. (a).] Beyond that, Dr. Miller fails to demonstrate that he reasonably incurred an additional $440 to file this motion. Therefore, Dr. Miller’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall pay a total of $60 in reasonable sanctions, payable to Dr. Miller, within 15 days of the Court’s signed Order.
Dr. Miller shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
4