Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction
"(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. "(c) 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." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.220.) The Court has reviewed Devereux's responses to the RFAs, the parties separate statements, and the parties' respective arguments. The Court agrees with Devereux that B.E. originally moved as to RFA Nos. 1, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. (B.E. Sep. Stat., filed Jan. 21, 2026.) The Court will deny B.E.'s motion as to RFAs not included in B.E.'s original motion. The Court finds that Devereux's responses to RFA Nos. 26 (unqualified admission), 27 (unqualified admission), 29 (unqualified denial), 30 (unqualified denial), and 31 (unqualified denial) are substantially Code-compliant, and will also deny B.E.'s motion as to these RFAs. (Ibid.)
The Court declines to determine in the context of a discovery motion whether any of these RFA responses are inaccurate or untrue, as argued by B.E. The Court will overrule the objections by Devereux as to RFA Nos. 1, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 28. Devereux's responses to these RFAs do not substantially comply with several requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. Devereux responds based on lack of information, but does not state that it has conducted a reasonable investigation. (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.220, subd. (c).) Devereux responds to only part of the RFAs rather than as much of the RFA itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.220, subd. (b).) There is no requirement that Devereux's responses be based on information that would independently be admissible at trial over a hearsay objection. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.220, subd. (c).) Rather, the requirement is whether information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Devereux to admit all or part of the matter. (Ibid.)
The Court will grant B.E.'s motion as to these RFAs and require that Devereux serve supplemental responses consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions as to the RFAs. (5) FI No. 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 1, 15 through 17, 20 through 22, and 26 through 31 FI No. 17.1 requires Devereux to respond to RFA No. 17.1 as to each RFA that was not an unqualified admission: "17.1 Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission?
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?”
If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: "(a) state the number of the request; "(b) state all facts on which you base your response; "(c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and "(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing." (Forsythe Decl., Ex. A.) Devereux failed to provide complete responses to FI No. 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 1, 15 through 17, 20 through 22, and 26 through 31.
In addition to supplemental response to the RFAs required above, the Court will require Devereux to serve supplemental responses to FI No. 17.1, separately as to each supplemental RFA response that is not an unqualified admission, as to as to RFA Nos. 1, 15 through 17, 20 through 22, and 26 through 31. Devereux's supplemental responses to FI No. 17 must include full responses to each of the subcategories in FI No. 17.1 as to each RFA that is not an unqualified admission. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions as to FI No. 17.1.
Tentative Ruling: 815-830 East Tremont Associates, G.P. v. Adam White, et al. Tentative Ruling: 815-830 East Tremont Associates, G.P. v. Adam White, et al. Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff 815-830 East Tremont Associates, G.P.: Robert B. Forouzandeh, Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP For Defendants and Cross Complainants Tom White and Adam White: Self- Represented RULING For all reasons stated herein, Tom White and Adam White (the Whites) and anyone acting with them or on their behalf are prohibited from transferring, selling, or disposing of the Type 47 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License Number 503769 (License) or taking any steps to remove it from the ownership of the Whites to anyone other than Plaintiff 815-830 East Tremont Associates, G.P. (Plaintiff).
For all reasons stated herein, until the date the License is transferred or sold to Plaintiff by the terms of the amended judgment in this action, or May 12, 2028, whichever date occurs first, Robert Forouzandeh, in addition to being deemed to be the attorney in fact for the Whites with respect to the signing of any and all documents on behalf of the Whites to sell and transfer the License to Plaintiff, shall also be attorney in fact for the Whites to sign any documents necessary to withdraw any applications to transfer the License to any party other than Plaintiff.
There shall be no liability attributed to Mr. Forouzandeh related to his execution of such documents. For all reasons stated herein, the legal fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this application in the amount of $4,110 shall be reduced from the purchase price that Plaintiff pays to purchase the License from the Whites pursuant to the amended judgment in this action. This deduction shall be in addition to all prior deductions ordered by this Court.
Background
This action was initiated by Plaintiff 815-830 East Tremont Associates, G.P. (Plaintiff) on July 24, 2020, seeking declaratory relief pertaining to a commercial lease between Plaintiff and defendants Tom White and Adam White (collectively, Defendants or the Whites). On July 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to enter judgment on a settlement agreement between the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On August 17, 2022, the Court entered an amended Judgment (Judgment) in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.
The Judgment ordered the sale of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License Type 47 Number 503769 (License) from Defendants to Plaintiff in the amount of $100,000 less certain credits. (Judgment, P.P. 2-3.) Under the Judgment, Defendants' failure to sign any documents necessary to sell, convey and transfer the License to Plaintiff shall result in: (i) the escrow company transferring the License to Plaintiff to the extent permitted by law as though Defendants had signed the necessary documentation; or (ii) Defendants being held in contempt until compliance with the Judgment. (Judgment, P. 4.)
On July 16, 2025, the Court entered an order holding Defendnats in contempt of Court (Contempt Order). The Contempt Order further required that Defendants pay Plaintiff's fees and costs associated with the contempt proceedings in the amount of $6,365, and that such fees would be deducted from the purchase price of the License. (Ibid.) The Contempt Order further provided that Robert Forouzandeh (Forouzandeh) is deemed to be the attorney in fact for Defendants, solely with respect to the signing of any and all documents on behalf of Defendants to sell and transfer the License to Plaintiff, and that there shall be no liability attributed to Forouzandeh related to these acts. (Ibid.)
On April 23, 2026, the Court held an ex parte hearing pertaining to Plaintiff's request that the Court enter a