Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Southwest District
Torrance Dept. M
WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 19TRCV01062 vs. [Tentative] RULING
ROCKETSHIP ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Hearing Date: November 3, 2020
Moving Parties: Defendants Rocketship Entertainment, LLC and Thomas G. Akel
Responding Party: Plaintiff Webtoon Entertainment
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Things (Set One)
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
RULING
The motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On November 25, 2019, plaintiffs Webtoon Entertainment, Inc. and Quanquan (Chelsey) Han filed a complaint against Rocketship Entertainment, LLC and Thomas G. Akel for (1) inducing breach of contract, (2) intentional interference with contractual relations, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (4) fraudulent inducement to enter contract, (5) negligent misrepresentati
Hearing Date
November 03, 2020
Type
Other Contract Dispute (not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Southwest District
Torrance Dept. M
WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 19TRCV01062 vs. [Tentative] RULING
ROCKETSHIP ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Hearing Date: November 3, 2020
Moving Parties: Defendants Rocketship Entertainment, LLC and Thomas G. Akel
Responding Party: Plaintiff Webtoon Entertainment
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Things (Set One)
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
RULING
The motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On November 25, 2019, plaintiffs Webtoon Entertainment, Inc. and Quanquan (Chelsey) Han filed a complaint against Rocketship Entertainment, LLC and Thomas G. Akel for (1) inducing breach of contract, (2) intentional interference with contractual relations, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (4) fraudulent inducement to enter contract, (5) negligent misrepresentati