HEARING DATE: December 11, 2019
CASE NUMBER: BC686569
CASE NAME: David Frith-Smith v. Frank Cornell, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, David Frith-Smith
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, Frank Cornell
TRIAL DATE: September 1, 2020 (non-jury)
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Request for Sanctions
OPPOSITION: November 27, 2019
REPLY: December 4, 2019 [Reply Declarations only]
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production in Connection with the Notice of Deposition of Cornell is DENIED. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are also DENIED. Cornell is to give notice.
Background
This action arises out of Plaintiff, David Frith-Smith (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, Frank Cornell (“Cornell”)’s general partnership, California Investors I (“CII”) Plaintiff contends that he is a limited partner of the partnership and that Cornell is a general partner. Plaintiff contends that Cornell has breached his duties as
Hearing Date
December 11, 2019
Type
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING DATE: December 11, 2019
CASE NUMBER: BC686569
CASE NAME: David Frith-Smith v. Frank Cornell, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, David Frith-Smith
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, Frank Cornell
TRIAL DATE: September 1, 2020 (non-jury)
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Request for Sanctions
OPPOSITION: November 27, 2019
REPLY: December 4, 2019 [Reply Declarations only]
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production in Connection with the Notice of Deposition of Cornell is DENIED. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are also DENIED. Cornell is to give notice.
Background
This action arises out of Plaintiff, David Frith-Smith (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, Frank Cornell (“Cornell”)’s general partnership, California Investors I (“CII”) Plaintiff contends that he is a limited partner of the partnership and that Cornell is a general partner. Plaintiff contends that Cornell has breached his duties as