This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 07/09/2022 at 02:13:22 (UTC).

XXXXX

Case Summary

On 09/04/2013 XXXXX was filed as a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Fresno County BF Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Black, Donald, Tharpe, D Tyler, Ikeda, Dale, Snauffer, Mark, Hamilton, Jeffrey Y., Simpson, Alan and Gaab, Kimberly. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2757

  • Filing Date:

    09/04/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Black, Donald

Tharpe, D Tyler

Ikeda, Dale

Snauffer, Mark

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

Simpson, Alan

Gaab, Kimberly

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Bee Sweet Citrus Inc

Kingspan Insulated Panels, Inc.

Defendants and Cross Defendants

Style-Line Construction, Inc.

Kingspan Insulated Panels, Inc

Style-line Construction Inc

Cross Plaintiffs

Kinspan Insulated Panels, Inc.

Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Cross Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

Weiland, David J.

Croley, Daniel A.

Heath, Stephen B.

Kracht, Matthew J.

Yuen, Steven W.

Cross Defendant and Defendant Attorney

Heath, Stephen B.

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement Filed

Case Management Statement; Comment: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: of order shortening time on listed parties by email on 7-16-15

Letter of Documents Returned Without Filing

Letter of Documents Returned Without Filing; Comment: Courtesy Copy of Exparte Application and supporting documents

Request for Judical Notice

Request

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Comment: in Opposition to Kingspan Insulated Pane, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

Answer Filed

Civil Document; Comment: to first amended cross-complaint of Style-Line Construction, Inc.

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: certificate of mailing attached

Notice of Motion

Notice of MSJ; Comment: and motion for: Summary judgment

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Substitution of Attorney

06/03/2021: Substitution of Attorney

Notice

05/27/2021: Notice

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

05/19/2021: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Request for Partial Dismissal

05/18/2021: Request for Partial Dismissal

Stipulation and Order filed

03/30/2021: Stipulation and Order filed

Stipulation and Order

03/29/2021: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order Attachment

03/18/2021: Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

02/17/2021: Minute Order Attachment

Appellant's Notice Designating on Appeal

12/02/2020: Appellant's Notice Designating on Appeal

516 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketJury Trial; Judicial Officer: Gaab, Kimberly; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Case Stayed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/11/2021
  • DocketTrial Readiness; Judicial Officer: Gaab, Kimberly; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Case Stayed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney Filed; Comment: Old Attorney: Kurt F. Vote New Attorney: Stephen B. Heath

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice or Order Staying Action

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Dismissal filed; Comment: Notice of Entry of Dismissal

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2021
  • DocketMandatory Settlement Conference; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Off Calendar

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • DispositionDisposition: Judgment; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Comment; Comment: (As to The First and Second Causes of Action of Style-Line Construction, lnc.'s First Amended Cross-Complaint are hereby dismissed ONLY. - with prejudice.)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal Received - Pending Review; Comment: Request for Dismissal Cross-Complaint (1st and 2nd COA)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • DocketOrder from the 5th DCA Filed - Civil; Comment: DCA# F081905

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • FinancialFinancial info for Style-line Construction Inc: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2021-19033 Style-line Construction Inc $20.00

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
504 More Docket Entries
  • 09/04/2013
  • FinancialFinancial info for Bee Sweet Citrus Inc: Counter Payment Receipt # 181540 Bee Sweet Citrus Inc $435.00

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • FinancialFinancial info for Bee Sweet Citrus Inc: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • FinancialFinancial: Bee Sweet Citrus Inc; Total Financial Assessment $1,005.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,005.00

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • DocketNotice of Case Mgnt Conf; Comment: Docket entry for the letter produced from CSAEVNT on 04-SEP-2013 by LESPARZA.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • DocketPayment; Comment: A Payment of -$435.00 was made on receipt CVCE181540.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • DocketSummons filed; Comment: Summons on Complaint filed. le

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: le Event: Civil complaint filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • DocketCivil case cover sheet; Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet le

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: Event: New Civil Case Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/01/1900
  • DocketChambers Work- Pre; Hearing Time: 8:30 AM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Complaint Information

JAMES C. SHERWOOD #148896 |

416 East South Avenue

Fowler, California 93625 : u

Tel: (559) 834-5345 , ‘ -

Fax: (559) 834-2065 MAR 09 2015

E-mail: james@beesweetcitrus.com

DAVID J. WEILAND #160447 o, SN S s COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP y (o= DEPUTY Attorneys at Law :

499 West Shaw, Suite 116 —

Fresno, California 93704 :flafifcewm Tel: (559) 248-4820 . Notice of Motion Fax: (559) 248-4830 ' | 226208 .

E-mail: dweiland@ch-law.com -

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CENTRAL DIVISION

BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC,, Case No. 13CECG02757 DSB Plaintiff, - | NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION;

AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

V. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

: MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO STYLE-LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC,; | FILE BEE SWEET CITRUS INC.’S THIRD KINGSPAN INSULATED PANELS, INC.; | AMENDED COMPLAINT and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, o Hearing Date: April 13, 2016 Defendants. Time: 3:30 p.m. | Dept.: 502 Assigned to: ‘Hon. Donald Black

AND RELATED CROSS-COMPLAINTS. Action Filed: September 4, 2013 Trial Date: June 6, 2016

TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 13, 2016, at 3:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in Department 502 of this Court, located at 1130 “O” Street, Fresno, CA, 93721, Plaintiff will mc;ve the Court for leave to file a Third Amended Compiaint, pursfiant | to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 473 and '576.

This motion will be made on the grounds that the Third Amended Complaint is in furtherance of justice and that filing of a Third Amended Complaint is. primarily necessitated

based on recent discovery responses from Style-Line Construction, Inc. Plaintiff proposes to

NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION; AND P&A’S ISO MOTION FOR

NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION; AND P&A’S ISO MOTION FOR remove Kingspan Insulated Panels as a defendant to the Third Cause of Action for express warranty. Good cause exists, and Defendants will suffer no prejudice, because the Third Amended Complaint will reduce the number of issues for trial.

remove Kingspan Insulated Panels as a defendant to the Third Cause of Action for express warranty. Good cause exists, and Defendants will suffer no prejudice, because the Third Amended Complaint will reduce the number of issues for trial.

Per Local Rule 2.2.6, the Superior Court of Fresno County “follows the tentative ruling procedure set forth in Rule 3.1308(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court. A tentative ruling on civil law and motion matters may be obtained by: 1. Telephoning the court at (559) 457-4943; or 2. Assessing tentative rulings on the court’s webite., [http//www.fresno.courts.ca.gov/tentative_rulings/]. If a party wishes to appear for oral argument, the notice to be given to the court, as required by rule 3.1308(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court, must be given by telephone to the clerk in the department to which the matter is assigned for hearing.”

Per the California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1), “[t]he court must make it's tentative ruling available by telephone and also, at the option of the court, by any other method designated by the court, by no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the scheduled hearing. If the court desires oral argument the tentative ruling must so direct. The tentative ruling may also note any 1ssues on which the court wishes the parties to provide further argument. If the court has not directed argument, oral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear. A party must notify all other parties by telephone or in person. The court must except notice by telephone and, at its direction, may also designate alternative methods by which a party may notify the court of the party’s intention to appear. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if the court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of intent to appear has not been | given.”

This motion will be based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of David J. Weiland, and Request for Judicial Notice, all as served and filed concurrently herewith, the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. INTRODUCTION

This action arises out of Defendants’ participation in the éofistruction of a cold storage facility in the spring of 2010 at Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.’s (“Bee Sweet”) packing facility in Fowler, California. Bee Sweet has previously filed a motion for leave to amend, which was granted by the court, and which fesulted in the filing of Bee Sweet’s Second Amended Complaint. Following the filing and service of the Second Amended Complaint, the parties have recently completed the deposition of the Persons Most Knowiedgeable of Style-Line Construction (“Style-Line”). The deposition testimony of Ffan_cisco Rodriguez and Mario Sanders, as described in the Declaration of. David J. Weiland in support of this motion, reveals a level of involvement on the part of Kingspan Insulated Panels, Inc. (“Kingspan”) in the design and instéllation of the foam insulated roof panels supplied by Kingspan for the project which was not previously known to Bee .Sweet, and which supports Bee Sweet’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

2. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY |

Plaintiffs commenced this action on September 4, 2013, seeking damages for Defendants’ negligent construction of a cold storage facility at Plaintiff’s packing facility 1§cated in Fowler, California. (Declaration of David J. Weiland in Support of Motion for Third Amended Complaint (“Weiland Decl.”), 2, p. 1, 1ine 27-28.) Plaintiff filed its First Amended Compléint on January 6, 2014. (Weiland Decl., § 3, p. 2, lines 1 - 3.) Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint on August 3, 2015. (Weiland Decl., § 4, p. 2, lines 4 - 6.) Copies of all of the reférenced complaints are attached as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively, to the Request for Judicial Notice served herewith.

'Following the filing of the vafious Complaints, Cross-Complaints and Answers by the parties, several rounds of written discovery were propounded and answered among the parfies. (See

3 'NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION; AND P&A’S ISO MOTION FOR

3 'NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION; AND P&A’S ISO MOTION FOR cofnplaint to add an additional theory of recovery.where the delay in seeking the émendment was attributable to the opposing party’s failure to comply wifh discovery requests. (Sachs v. City of Oceanside (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 315, 319.) | | o | The policy" favoring léave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny

cofnplaint to add an additional theory of recovery.where the delay in seeking the émendment was attributable to the opposing party’s failure to comply wifh discovery requests. (Sachs v. City of Oceanside (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 315, 319.) | | o | The policy" favoring léave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny

an amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful firejudice, such as the running of the | statute of lifi.lit'é'ltions, trial deléy, the loss of critical evidencé, or added preparation costs. (Atkinson - v. Elk Cofp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Solit; v. Taokai Bank, Ltd. (1999) 68 Cal.App’.4th 1435, 1448.) Absent a showing of such prejudice, delay alone is not grounds for denial of a motion to arfiend. (See Kittrédge Sports Co. v. Superior Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3dJ 1045, 1048; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 563-65.)

B. LEAVE TO AMEND IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOULD BE GRANTED

In the present case, Bee Sweet seeks leave of court to amend its Second Amended Complaint. Based upon the recently completed deposition testimony of Style-Line’s Persons Most Knowledgeable, and exthits thereto, Bee Sweet seeks to aménd its operative complaint to clarify the basis for its claims against angspafi and its prayer for attorney’s fees.

i. The Proposed Amendnfients Are Necessary and In Furtherance of J u.stice'

The Second Amended Complaint was filed following court approval and was based upon responses by Style-Line to written discovery requests. The recenfly completed deposition of Style-Line’s Persons Most Kanledgeablé supports the allegation that Kifigspan breached its ‘warranty to Style-Line; and that Kingspan was much more directly involved in the design, layout and installation of the foam insulated roof panels for the Bee Sweet cold storage building. Therefore, it is in the interests of justice to permit the proposed amehdments.

Although ordinarily a judgé will not consider the validity of a proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, in this cé.se the need and validity of the propos;ed amendments only servé to support the granting of this motion. (See Atkinson, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 760; Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superzor Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 )

ii. Defendants Will Not be Pre]udlced By The Proposed Amendments The facts supporting the requested amendment have, at all times, been within the

5 NOTICE OF MOTION MOTION; AND P&A’S ISO MOTION FOR

5 NOTICE OF MOTION MOTION; AND P&A’S ISO MOTION FOR possession, custody, control and knbwledge of Kingspan; and there is no prejudice to Kingspan by the proposed amendment. | | iti. No Further Continuance of Trial is Needed

possession, custody, control and knbwledge of Kingspan; and there is no prejudice to Kingspan by the proposed amendment. | | iti. No Further Continuance of Trial is Needed

Courts apply a policy of great libefality in permitting amendments to the complaint at-any ‘stage of the proceedings up to and including trial. (Seé Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see alSé Sachs, Inc., 151 Cal.App.3d at pp. 484-85 (finding | amendment proper four years after filing of original cbmplaint afid on the eve of trial where delay due to Defendants' untimely discovery respénses.)

In the present case, Bee Sweet did not learn bf the documents hidden by Kingspan until February 2016. "l;hese documents should have'béefi produced by Kingspan many months ago. Any perceived prejudice to Kings'p.andeceit.

iv. Additional Discovery May Be Required | Bee Swegt believes that Kingspan is likely in possession of other documents regarding the cold storage building. Bee Sweet will be pursuant further efforts to obtain those documents. 4. CONCLUSION

It is in the interests of justice to permit Plaintiff leave of court to amend its Second Amended Cbmplaint to clarify ifs claims against Kingspan and to clarify Plaintiff’s prayer for relief. Plaintiff, therefore, respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Leave to File a Third

Amended Complaint.

Dated: February 25, 2016. COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP

"DAVID J. WEILAND Attorneys for Rlaintiff BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Kingspan Insulated Panels, Inc. - DBA Kingspan ASI is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Kracht, Matthew J.