Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions
temporary restraining order (TRO) and an order to show cause (OSC) why a preliminary injunction should not be entered, restraining Defendants from transferring the License to any party other than Plaintiff, among other relief. Defendant Adam White appeared before the Court and made arguments. The ex parte was granted.
On April 24, 2026, the Court entered the TRO and OSC. This hearing is to scheduled rule on Plaintiff's request that the Court enter a preliminary injunction under the terms of the TRO. Defendants did not file an opposition or response to the OSC.
Analysis: "Here, the Court reserved its jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, specifically its order of specific performance. 'The jurisdiction of a Court of equity to enforce its decrees is coextensive with its jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties, and it has power to enforce its decrees as a necessary incident to its jurisdiction. Except where the decree is self-executing, jurisdiction of the cause continues for this purpose, or leave may be expressly reserved to reinstate the cause for the purpose of enforcing the decree, or to make such further orders as may be necessary.' [Citations.] 'It follows that retention of jurisdiction by the Court for the purpose of interpreting and enforcing its judgment is within the scope of declaratory relief.' " (Stump's Market, Inc. v. Plaza de Santa Fe Limited, LLC (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 882, 890 (Stumps).)
Based on the declaration of counsel for Plaintiff, it appears there may be one or more imminent or ongoing transactions that will interfere with the execution of the Judgment in this action. (Forouzandeh Decl., P.P. 2-4.)
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a "preliminary injunction ... restraining [Tom White and Adam White and anyone acting with them or on their behalf] from transferring, selling, or disposing of the Type 47 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License Number 503769 and/or taking any steps to remove it from the ownership of Tom White and Adam White to anyone other than Plaintiff." (OSC, P.P. 1-3.)
Plaintiff has shown there is good cause for the Court to enter an order to ensure the Judgment is effectuated. (See Forouzandeh Decl., P.P. 2-4.; Stump's, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 890.)
The Court will vacate the TRO and enter an order that the Whites and anyone acting with them or on their behalf are prohibited from transferring, selling, or disposing of the License, or taking any steps to remove it from the ownership of the Whites to anyone other than Plaintiff.
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?”
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 Forouzandeh related to his execution of such documents.
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 Defendants. (See Judgment, P. 5.) This deduction shall be in addition to all prior deductions ordered by this Court. (See ibid.)
The Court notes that its order herein is technically not a preliminary injunction. Rather, this order is entered in accordance with the Court's jurisdiction for the purpose of effectuating the Judgment. (See Stump's, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 890.)
Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings The People's Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions Re PMQ Deposition
Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff People of the State of California: John T. Savrnoch, Morgan S. Lucas, Office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney; Erik Nasarenko, Andrew J. Reid, Office of the Ventura County District Attorney For Defendant The Kroger Co.: Jacob M. Harper, James H. Moon, Daniel H. Leigh, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
RULING For all reasons stated herein, Kroger shall produce one or more witnesses most qualified to testify on topic Nos. 2, 3, 7, and the stipulated topic in the March 12, 2026, ex parte order. The additional PMQ deposition shall take place on or before May 29, 2026, at the office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. If the parties cannot agree on a specific date, the parties may appear ex parte and the court will set one. On or before May 15, 2026, Kroger shall serve a verification that the product formulation documents required herein and in the March 12, 2026, ex parte order have been produced. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $12,750 are awarded in favor of plaintiff the People of the State of California, payable by defendant The Kroger Co. on or before June 5, 2026. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Background
On May 29, 2024, plaintiff People of the State of California (People) filed their original complaint in this action against defendant The Kroger Co. (Kroger), an operator of retail grocery stores. The People allege that beginning on November 1, 2018, Kroger sold bread products (Carbmaster Products) in California with misleading packaging pertaining to the number of calories in these products.
Between July 2024 and March 2025, the parties litigated issues pertaining to a notice of removal of this action to federal court by Kroger, a subsequent order of remand from the federal court to this court, and a demurer and motion to strike by Kroger pertaining to the People's first amended complaint.
On April 9, 2025, the People filed their operative second amended complaint (SAC). The SAC asserts 10 causes of action: (1) false advertising (outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; (2) false advertising (within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; (3) unfair competition (false advertising outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) unfair competition (false advertising within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) unfair competition (false advertising by enticement outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (6) unfair competition (false advertising by enticement within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (7) unfair competition (misbranded food outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Health and Safety Code section 110660; (8) unfair competition (misbranded food within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Health and Safety Code section 110660; (9) unfair competition (untrue or misleading advertising outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (10) unfair competition (untrue or misleading advertising within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
As alleged in the SAC: The packaging for Carbmaster Products contained false and misleading information as to the number of calories contained in a serving. (SAC, P.P. 13-36.) "For example, on the front packaging and on the FDA Nutrition Facts panel, [Kroger] advertised that its CARBMASTER Wheat Bread contained only 30 calories. In reality, CARBMASTER Wheat Bread contained 50 calories. In another instance, [Kroger] advertised on the front packaging and the FDA Nutrition Facts panel that its CARBMASTER Hamburger Buns contained only 50 calories, when the buns actually contained 100 calories." (SAC, P. 18.)
In 2021 or 2022, Kroger corrected the FDA nutrition facts on the back of the packaging, but continued to underrepresent the number of calories on the front of the packaging. (SAC, P.P. 19-24.) The People seek to recover civil penalties pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17200 through 17206, 17500, 17535, and 17536, in the amount of $2,500 for each violation, and to obtain a permanent injunction. (SAC, P.P. 32-96.)
On August 22, 2025, Kroger filed its operative first amended answer to the SAC, generally denying the allegations in the SAC and asserting 12 affirmative defenses.
The court finds that Dr. Payne was not the person most qualified as to topic Nos. 2, 3, and 7, and Kroger did not affirmatively offer to produce another PMQ witness as to these topics to ensure compliance with the February 18 Order and March 12 Order. It was Kroger's obligation to fully comply with these orders. The governing statue requires multiple witnesses, if needed to cover the PMQ topics. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.230 ["those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified ..."].)
The court finds that monetary sanctions are appropriate based on Kroger's failure to produce a witness who is most knowledgeable as to topic Nos. 2, 3, and 7. The court will award monetary sanctions in favor of the People in an amount equal to 30 attorney hours at $425 per hour, totaling $12,750. (See Lucas Decl., P.P. 14-26.) The court determines that this amount is just under all the circumstances. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.450, subd. (h).) The court declines to not award monetary sanctions as to the product formulation documents.
As to issue and evidentiary sanctions, the court declines to issue these sanctions requested by the People. Evidentiary and issue sanctions should be used sparingly as a last resort to cure prejudice caused by the failure to provide the required discovery. (Lopez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 604.) The court determines that a more appropriate remedy is to require that Kroger produce a PMQ witness who is most qualified to testify on these subjects. The court does not find that further discovery would be futile. These issues are not particularly complex and should be resolved without difficulty given the experienced counsel in this action. The court anticipates that the parties will work together in good faith to ensure compliance with the court's orders.
Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings The People's Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions
Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff People of the State of California: John T. Savrnoch, Morgan S. Lucas, Office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney; Erik Nasarenko, Andrew J. Reid, Office of the Ventura County District Attorney For Defendant The Kroger Co.: Jacob M. Harper, James H. Moon, Daniel H. Leigh, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
RULING For all reasons stated herein, on or before May 6, 2026, Kroger shall serve further verified supplemental responses to special interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 10, and form interrogatory Nos. 12.1 and 12.6. Plaintiff People of the State of California's motion for issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions, is denied in all other respects. The trial date of 7/8/26 is confirmed.
Background
On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff People of the State of California (People) filed their original complaint in this action against Defendant The Kroger Co. (Kroger), an operator of retail grocery stores. The People allege that beginning on November 1, 2018, Kroger sold bread products (Carbmaster Products) in California with misleading packaging pertaining to the number of calories in these products.
Between July 2024 and March 2025, the parties litigated issues pertaining to a notice of removal of this action to federal Court by Kroger, a subsequent order of remand from the federal Court to this Court, and a demurer and motion to strike by Kroger pertaining to the People's first amended complaint.
On April 9, 2025, the People filed their operative second amended complaint (SAC). The SAC asserts 10 causes of action: (1) false advertising (outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500;
to the RFP, the motion is procedurally deficient for the additional reasons discussed below. Subject to exception, "any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)
"A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)
"The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following: "(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand; "(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers; "(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute; "(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it; "(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and "(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(1)-(6).)
As the motion shows that Watkins served responses to the RFP and the RFA on February 17, 2026, the motion must be accompanied by a separate statement as to those discovery requests. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a); cf. 3.1345(b) [when separate statement is not required].) As the motion is not accompanied by a separate statement, the motion fails to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a). The Court has discretion to deny the motion on that basis. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)
In addition, though Watkins has not filed an opposition with the Court, M Dettamanti filed a reply in support of the motion on April 16, 2026. In support of that reply, attorney Misho states: "on March 25, 2026, well after the February 17, 2026, stipulated deadline, and only after this Motion was filed, [Watkins] served Amended and Supplemental Responses to [the RFA] and a belated Response to [the FI]." (Reply Misho Dec., P. 3, 7 & exhibits B-C; see also Reply at p. 1, ll. 22-25.)
Where a responding party provides discovery requested in a motion to compel and the moving party proceeds with the motion, the Court has substantial discretion to determine how to rule on the motion based on the circumstances of the case. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.) The Court may take the motion off-calendar, deny the motion as moot or unnecessary, or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. (Id. at p. 409.)
Under the circumstances present here, and considering the deficiencies in the motion discussed above including the failure by M Dettamanti to include a rule compliant separate statement with the motion, the Court will deny the motion, without prejudice to any appropriate motion to compel that may be filed by M Dettamanti in the future to the extent they determine that the amended or supplemental responses of Watkins remain deficient. The Court expects the parties to meet and confer, fully and in good faith, to informally resolve any remaining disputes.
Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Case Number