Chapman v. Saraatje
This is a dispute over purported ownership of a new Oakland nightclub. Plaintiff Derrick Chapman sued defendant Naef Dagmar Saraatje, individually and doing business as At Seventeen. His first amended complaint alleged that defendant granted him half ownership of the club in exchange for his capital investment, but then excluded him from ownership and management of the club and reneged on an agreement to return his investment. Plaintiff sought an accounting, as well as damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory fraud and estoppel, and money had and received.
Defendant was forced to move to compel responses to discovery. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The trial court granted the motion to compel on November 7, 2007. The courts order (November 7 Order) advised plaintiff that failure to comply with this order or further discovery misuse may result in the imposition of future sanctions, including evidentiary, monetary, contempt or terminating sanctions.
Comments on Chapman v. Saraatje