This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/15/2020 at 07:14:03 (UTC).

A TO Z TEXTILES, INC. VS FABRIQUE INNOVATIONS, INC.

Case Summary

On 07/16/2018 A TO Z TEXTILES, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FABRIQUE INNOVATIONS, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9518

  • Filing Date:

    07/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

A TO Z TEXTILES INC.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

FABRIQUE INNOVATIONS INC. AKA SYKEL ENTERPRISES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

PRINCE DAVID LOUIS

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

BOWLES DAVID KAY

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/31/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO A COURT OF UNLIMITED JURISDICTION; AND DECLARATI

9/8/2020: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO A COURT OF UNLIMITED JURISDICTION; AND DECLARATI

Brief (name extension) - Brief Plaintiff/Cross-defendant's Supplemental Briefing and Evidentiary Objections Regarding Additional Evidence Submitted by Defendant/Cross-complainant on Reply to the Oppos

9/9/2020: Brief (name extension) - Brief Plaintiff/Cross-defendant's Supplemental Briefing and Evidentiary Objections Regarding Additional Evidence Submitted by Defendant/Cross-complainant on Reply to the Oppos

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Transfer)

9/14/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Transfer)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/31/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order REGARDING MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND TRIAL

4/8/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order REGARDING MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND TRIAL

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application OF DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRA...)

12/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application OF DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRA...)

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application OF DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO A COURT OF UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OR CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE

12/18/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application OF DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO A COURT OF UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OR CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/23/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Answer - Answer

11/20/2018: Answer - Answer

Answer

9/24/2018: Answer

Proof of Service by Mail

8/28/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Summons - on Complaint

7/16/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/16/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7/16/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/02/2021
  • Hearing03/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Transfer: Filed By: Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (Defendant); Result: Denied; Result Date: 09/14/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Transfer)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Transfer scheduled for 09/14/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/14/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketBrief Plaintiff/Cross-defendant's Supplemental Briefing and Evidentiary Objections Regarding Additional Evidence Submitted by Defendant/Cross-complainant on Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Transfer; Filed by: A to Z Textiles, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketSupplemental Declaration MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO A COURT OF UNLIMITED JURISDICTION; AND DECLARATION OF DAVID K. BOWLES; Filed by: Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Transfer)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Transfer scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 09/14/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by: Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (Cross-Complainant); As to: A to Z Textiles, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: A to Z Textiles, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (Defendant); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: A to Z Textiles, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: A to Z Textiles, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC09518    Hearing Date: September 14, 2020    Dept: 26

Defendant / Cross-Complainant Fabrique Innovations, Inc.’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:
On July 16, 2018, Plaintiff A to Z Textiles, Inc. (“Cross-Defendant”) filed this action against Defendant Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (“Cross-Complainant”) for breach of contract and related claims. On September 24, 2018, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint, then on November 6, 2018, filed an Amended Cross-Complaint.
More than a year later, on December 18, 2019, the Court denied Cross-Complainant’s ex parte application to transfer the action to a court of unlimited jurisdiction. (Minute Order, 12/18/19.) The Court also ruled that Cross-Complainant could file a notice motion to reclassify.
Cross-Complainant filed the instant Motion to Transfer / Reclassify (the “Motion”) on February 3, 2020. Cross-Defendant filed an opposition on July 21, 2020 and Cross-Complainant replied on July 28, 2020.
The Motion initially came for hearing on August 3, 2020, at which time the Court ordered further briefing regarding good cause for the timing of the request to reclassify. Cross-Complainant filed a supplemental brief on September 8, 2020.
Discussion
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.030:
If a party in a limited civil case files a cross-complaint that causes the action or proceeding to exceed the maximum amount in controversy for a limited civil case or otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements for a limited civil case as prescribed by Section 85, the caption of the cross-complaint shall state that the action or proceeding is a limited civil case to be reclassified by cross-complaint, or words to that effect. The party at the time of filing the cross-complaint shall pay the reclassification fees provided in Section 403.060, and the clerk shall promptly reclassify the case.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.030.) The initial Cross-Complaint filed on September 24, 2018 and Amended Cross-Complaint filed on November 6, 2018 seek damages of at least $1 million dollars. However, neither Cross-Complaint stated that the action is a limited civil case to be reclassified by cross-complaint. Nor did Cross-Complainant pay the reclassification fee. As a result, the action was not automatically reclassified at the time the Cross-Complaint was filed.
Code of Civil Procedures section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)
In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Id. at 279.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)
Therefore, Cross-Complainant must show that the case is incorrectly classified, and that it had good cause for not moving to reclassify earlier. The Amended Cross-Complaint was filed in November 2018, yet Cross-Complainant did not see reclassification until more than a year later, in December, 2019. In its supplemental briefing, Cross-Complainant relies on the declaration of its counsel, David K. Bowles. Bowles states that after the Cross-Complaints were filed he did not realize the case remained in the limited jurisdiction court because he believed the case would be reclassified automatically. (Supp. Motion, Bowles Decl., ¶¶5-6.) While the parties exchanged discovery during the following year, no other court proceedings took place until counsel for Cross-Complainant realized the case remained in limited. (Id. at ¶7.) At that time, Cross-Complainant filed the ex parte application to reclassify on December 18, 2019.
Cross-Complainant has not demonstrated good cause for the delay in seeking reclassification of this action. It has not shown any reason to believe the case would have been reclassified automatically. Simply filing a cross-complaint in excess of the jurisdictional limit does not reclassify an action; other steps must be undertaken to ensure reclassification including a statement of reclassification on the face page of the pleading and concurrent payment of the reclassification fee. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.030.) Furthermore, Cross-Complainant was apparently unconcerned that no notice of reclassification was sent to the parties. Despite its belief that this case is worth approximately $1 million, Cross-Complainant made no effort to follow up with the Court.
Regarding Cross-Complainant’s evidence that it incurred damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit, the Motion presents the declaration of Robert Rosenberg. Rosenberg filed an initial declaration in support of the Motion on February 3, 2020 stating he was an employee of Cross-Complainant. (Motion, Rosenberg Decl., ¶1.) Rosenberg states that Cross-Defendant’s shipping of wet textiles and subsequent failure to pick up the textiles from the warehouse in which they were stored resulted in the warehouse owner terminating its relationship with Cross-Complainant. (Motion, Rosenberg Decl., ¶¶1-5.) The termination of the warehouse relationship resulted in the loss of unique cutting and shipping technology that certain customers required. (Id. at ¶¶6-8.) Cross-Complainant was not able to find an adequate warehouse option and lost sales to those customers in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Id. at ¶¶6-8.) Details and documentary evidence regarding these damages was included in the declaration supporting the Reply. (Reply, Rosenberg Decl., ¶¶2-10 and Exhs. A-B.) By this evidence Cross-Complainant seeks to show that a single order of the specially cut and folded fabric from Walmart would have generated profits of $123,096 for Cross-Complainant and that Walmart had placed more than one order with Cross-Complainant. (Ibid.)
Cross-Defendant’s evidentiary objections to Rosenberg’s declaration on reply are well taken. In support of the Reply filed on July 27, 2020, Rosenberg now declares that he is Cross-Complainant’s independent contractor instead of its employee. (Reply, Rosenberg Decl., ¶1.) No explanation is provided for this change in position. Nor is information provided as to how an independent contractor with “general knowledge” of this case can testify regarding the agreement between Cross-Complainant and Walmart. (Id. at ¶¶1-3.) In fact, Rosenberg makes no assertion that the statements in his declaration are based on personal knowledge. Even if the Court were to consider the exhibits attached the reply declaration, neither shows a probability that Cross-Complainant lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits. The first exhibit is purportedly an email from a Walmart representative to Rosenberg placing a purchase order for the special fabric. (Id. at Exh. A.) The email exchange, however, does not contain the purchase orders. (Ibid.) Rather, it refers to an attachment with the purchase orders, which is not submitted into evidence. (Ibid.) Indeed, it is not possible to tell from the email that it is from a Walmart representative to Rosenberg because Cross-Complainant’s representative appears to be someone name “Seeta Shiwnath.” (Ibid.) This email exchange does not demonstrate that Cross-Complainant had an arrangement with Walmart.
The second exhibit is purportedly an “internal record” showing the quantity and price of a single order from Walmart. (Id. at Exh. B.) Aside from Cross-Complainant’s failure to properly authenticate this record with testimony from the person who created it or the custodian of records, the record itself makes no mention of the purchaser or seller. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Court does not find this evidence shows a possibility that Cross-Complainant will recover damages of more than $25,000.00 from Cross-Defendant.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendant / Cross-Complainant Fabrique Innovations, Inc.’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is DENIED.
Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant A to Z Textiles, Inc. to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC09518    Hearing Date: August 03, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant / Cross-Complainant Fabrique Innovations, Inc.’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On July 16, 2018, Plaintiff A to Z Textiles, Inc. (“Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant”) filed this action against Defendant Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (“Defendant / Cross-Complainant”) for breach of contract and related claims. On September 24, 2018, Defendant / Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint, then on November 6, 2018, filed an Amended Cross-Complaint. The Amended Cross-Complaint seeks damages in excess of $1 million from Plaintiff. (Amended X-Compl., Prayer.)

A year later, on December 18, 2019, the Court denied Defendant / Cross-Complainant’s ex parte application to transfer the action to a court of unlimited jurisdiction. (Minute Order, 12/18/19.) The Court also ruled that Defendant could filed a notice motion to reclassify.

Defendant / Cross-Complainant filed the instant Motion to Transfer / Reclassify (the “Motion”) on February 3, 2020. Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant filed an opposition on July 21, 2020 and Defendant / Cross-Complainant replied on July 28, 2020.

Discussion

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.030:

If a party in a limited civil case files a cross-complaint that causes the action or proceeding to exceed the maximum amount in controversy for a limited civil case or otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements for a limited civil case as prescribed by Section 85, the caption of the cross-complaint shall state that the action or proceeding is a limited civil case to be reclassified by cross-complaint, or words to that effect. The party at the time of filing the cross-complaint shall pay the reclassification fees provided in Section 403.060, and the clerk shall promptly reclassify the case.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.030.) The Amended Cross-Complaint filed on November 6, 2018 seeks damages of at least $1 million dollars but does not state that the action is a limited civil case to be reclassified by cross-complaint. (Amended X-Compl.) Nor did Defendant / Cross-Complainant pay the reclassification fee. As a result, the action was not automatically reclassified at the time the Cross-Complaint was filed.

Code of Civil Procedures section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Id. at 279.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

Therefore, Cross-Complainant must show that the case is incorrectly classified, and that it had good cause for not moving to reclassify earlier. The Amended Cross-Complaint was filed in November 2018, yet Cross-Complainant did not see reclassification until more than a year later, in December, 2019. No explanation is provided regarding this delay and the Court cannot find good cause for the timing of the Motion to Reclassify.

Regarding Cross-Complainant’s evidence that it incurred damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit, the Motion presents the declaration of an employee who states that Cross-Defendant’s shipping of wet textiles and subsequent failure to pick up the textiles from the warehouse in which they were stored resulted in the warehouse owner terminating its relationship with Cross-Complainant. (Motion, Rosenberg Decl., ¶¶1-5.) The termination of the warehouse relationship resulted in the loss of unique cutting and shipping technology that certain customers required. (Id. at ¶¶6-8.) Cross-Complainant was not able to find an adequate warehouse option and lost sales to those customers in the hundred of thousands of dollars. (Id. at ¶¶6-8.)

This evidence is minimal as no details regarding the customers or purported contracts are provided. Nor is any documentary evidence attached. It is not until the reply, which seeks to address the opposition’s contention that no evidence is provided, that additional details and documentary evidence is included in the supporting declaration. (Reply, Supp. Rosenberg Decl., ¶¶2-10 and Exhs. A-B.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant / Cross-Complainant Fabrique Innovations, Inc.’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE, THE PARTIES MAY FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. CROSS-COMPLAINANT MAY ADDRESS THE TIMING OF THE MOTION AND WHY IT HAD GOOD CAUSE FOR NOT MOVING TO RECLASSIFY EARLIER. CROSS-DEFENDANT MAY RESPOND TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON REPLY. NO BRIEFING IS PERMITTED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE COURT’S ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.