This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/16/2020 at 06:07:57 (UTC).

AMAZON PRODUCE NETWORK OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS QUANTUM TRANSPORTATION, LP, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/05/2019 AMAZON PRODUCE NETWORK OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against QUANTUM TRANSPORTATION, LP, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1294

  • Filing Date:

    02/05/2019

  • 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

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

AMAZON PRODUCE NETWORK OF CALIFORNIA LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

QUANTUM TRANSPORTATION LP A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

DOE ONE THROUGH DOE FIFTEEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KIRSCH JOSHUA ERIK

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

HUTCHINSON GEORGE C

 

Court Documents

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

10/28/2020: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Reply (name extension) - Reply Reply to Opposition to Motion to Vacate

9/23/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply Reply to Opposition to Motion to Vacate

Reply (name extension) - Reply BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/24/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

10/2/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

2/24/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

6/29/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/29/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Request (name extension) - Request PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR EARLY HEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL CONTINUANCE

6/29/2020: Request (name extension) - Request PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR EARLY HEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL CONTINUANCE

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

6/29/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - w...)

6/30/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - w...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT

7/14/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT

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

7/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration In Support of Motion to Set Aside Default

7/20/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration In Support of Motion to Set Aside Default

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/26/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/5/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/5/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/5/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/5/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/22/2021
  • Hearing06/22/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketAddress for Joshua Erik Kirsch (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 10/28/2020 to 10/28/2020; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 06/22/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/08/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 11/17/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 11/17/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketNotice OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER; Filed by: Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC, a limited liability company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketDefault entered as to Quantum Transportation, LP, a limited partnership; On the Complaint filed by Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC, a limited liability company on 02/05/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC, a limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Quantum Transportation, LP, a limited partnership (Defendant); Service Date: 02/08/2019; Service Cost: 75.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/08/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC, a limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Quantum Transportation, LP, a limited partnership (Defendant); Doe One through Doe Fifteen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC, a limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Quantum Transportation, LP, a limited partnership (Defendant); Doe One through Doe Fifteen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC, a limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Quantum Transportation, LP, a limited partnership (Defendant); Doe One through Doe Fifteen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC01294    Hearing Date: October 01, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., October 1, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Amazon Produce Network of CA, LLC v. Quantum Transportation, LP

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC01294 COMPL. FILED: 02-05-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 01-05-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 01-20-21

TRIAL DATE: 02-04-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Quantum Transportation, LP

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP § 435, et seq.)

(2) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Quantum Transportation, LP

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT

(CCP § 473)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Quantum Transportation, LP’s Motion to Set Aside Default is CONTINUED TO NOV 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Plaintiff Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC’s Motion to Strike Answer and Cross-Complaint is also CONTINUED TO NOV 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 to be concurrently heard and decided with Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

Motion to Strike

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 20, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on September 24, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

Motion to Set Aside Default

OPPOSITION: Filed on September 18, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on September 23, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, bailment, and negligence against Defendant Quantum Transportation, LP (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a proof of service demonstrating Defendant was personally served with the Summons and Complaint on February 8, 2019. (2/26/19 Proof of Service.)

Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, default was entered against it on February 24, 2020.

On March 5, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff.

On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Answer and Cross-Complaint (the “Motion to Strike”). Confusingly, on July 20, 2020, Defendant filed a combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Set Aside Default (the “Motion to Set Aside”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Set Aside on September 18, 2020, and Defendant filed a Reply on September 23, 2020. Finally, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Strike on September 24, 2020.

The Court considers Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside first.

  1. Motion to Set Aside Default

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides that an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) The Motion must also be accompanied by a copy of the moving party’s responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

Section 473, subdivision (b), provides for both mandatory and discretionary relief. (Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.) The mandatory provision states in pertinent part:

“[W]henever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) (Italics added.)

“The purpose of this mandatory relief provision is to alleviate the hardship on parties who lose their day in court due to an inexcusable failure to act by their attorneys. [Citation.]” (Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 723.) (Italics added.) “If the prerequisites for the application of the mandatory provision of section 473, subdivision (b) exist, the trial court does not have discretion to refuse relief.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612.)

B. Discussion

As an initial matter, Defendant’s counsel is admonished for confusingly combining its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and the instant Motion to Set Aside instead of properly filing two separate documents.

Defendant timely seeks to set aside the default entered on February 24, 2020 due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s misconduct, or alternatively, pursuant to Section 473, subdivision (b)’s mandatory provision.

Defendant’s counsel first argues that, after promising in June 2019 that no default would be entered, and after seemingly abandoning the case, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel in February 2020 informing him Defendant’s answer was due. (Mot., to Set Aside, pp. 3:3-6; 5:2-7.) He further argues that Plaintiff’s counsel filed a request for entry of default without notice. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides evidence that on February 5, 2020, he sent Defendant’s counsel an email requesting that an answer be filed by the close of business day on Monday, February 10, 2020, as Plaintiff’s counsel wanted to “get the case moving.” (Plf. Oppo. to Mtn. to Vacate, Kirsch Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. M.) Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel provided multiple extensions between March 2019 and June 2019 for Defendant’s counsel to file a responsive pleading. (Plf. Oppo. to Mtn. to Vacate, pp. 14:26-15:16, Kirsch Decl., ¶¶ 7-12, Exhs. F-L.) On February 6, 2020, pursuant to Defendant’s counsel’s request, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to extend the deadline to February 14, 2020 to either pay the claim or file an answer. (Plf. Oppo. to Mtn. to Vacate, Kirsch Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. M.) Plaintiff’s counsel expressly warned this would be the “final extension.” (Id.) Thus, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s counsel provided no warning a default would be entered if no responsive pleading was filed by February 14, 2020.

Defendant’s counsel also argues Plaintiff’s counsel improperly served Defendant itself with the request for entry of default and that Defendant’s counsel should have been served instead. (Mot., to Set Aside, pp. 3:21-4:2.) However, Defendant’s counsel was not Defendant’s attorney of record when the request for entry of default was filed. In any case, as noted above, Defendant’s counsel was adequately warned a default could be entered if no responsive pleading was filed by February 14, 2020.

Furthermore, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s failure to serve a statement of damages warrants setting aside the default. (Id.) However, as Plaintiff notes, a statement of damages is only required in personal injury or wrongful death actions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11.) Because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death action, that requirement is inapplicable here. (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301.)

Finally, Defendant argues the Court should set aside the default because Defendant’s counsel believed Plaintiff abandoned the case as he received no communications from Plaintiff’s counsel between June 26, 2019 and February 5, 2020. (Mot., to Set Aside, p. 6:14-23, Hutchinson Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) Defendant’s counsel also states that, at an unspecified time, he underwent “some medical related matters. ” (Id. at ¶ 12.) As a result, he was prescribed multiple medications that affected his ability to focus and caused drowsiness and inattention. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel continues to receive treatment and states that due to his medical condition and the COVID-19 pandemic, he has been instructed to remain in isolation with little access to computer files. (Id. at ¶ 12-15.)

Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, arguing that it does not accept blame and instead blames opposing counsel. (Plf. Oppo. to Mtn. to Set Aside, p. 14:22-25.) He also argues Defendant’s counsel uses health issues as an excuse but fails to show those health issues are related to the entry of default. (Id. at p. 14:15-21.) While motions made pursuant to Section 473 subdivision (b)’s mandatory provision are routinely granted, denial is warranted if the “court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Indeed, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration is ambiguous as to whether he accepts fault for the default. In addition, without dates, the Court is unable to determine whether there is a causal connection between the default entered and Defendant’s counsel’s alleged medical issues and related treatment. Lastly, Defendant’s counsel states in his declaration that he includes two attachments, but none are included.

Accordingly, Defendant’s counsel is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration addressing the issues noted above.

  1. Motion to Strike

A. Legal Standard

A motion to strike may be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, which authorize a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) A motion to strike is used to address defects that appear on the face of a pleading or from judicially noticed matter but that are not grounds for a demurrer. (Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342; see also City & County of San Francisco v. Strahlendorf (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1913 (motion may not be based on a party's declaration or factual representations made by counsel in the motion papers).) The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the [pleading].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. (Mot. to Strike, Kirsch Decl., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff seeks to strike the Answer and Cross-Complaint filed by Defendant on March 5, 2020 on the basis that a default had been entered against it on February 24, 2020, and thus it was “out of court” with no right to participate in the proceedings. (Mot., to Strike, p. 2:21-26.) Indeed, “[t]he clerk’s entry of default cuts off the defendant’s right to take further affirmative steps such as filing a pleading or motion….” (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301.) As noted above, however, Defendant has properly filed a motion to set aside the default to participate in this litigation.

Plaintiff further argues that even if the Answer and Cross-Complaint had been timely filed, they should be stricken because they do not include a proof of service. (Mot. to Strike, pp. 2:26-3:2.) However, Plaintiff provides no authority demonstrating this is a proper basis upon which the Court may strike a pleading. Indeed, this can easily be corrected by later filing a proof of service. Notably, Defendant filed a proof of service on June 11, 2020 demonstrating that on March 5, 2020, the Answer and Cross-Complaint were personally served on Plaintiff’s counsel at his San Francisco office. (6/11/20 Proof of Service.)

As the Court’s ruling will depend on whether Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside is granted, the Motion to Strike is CONTINUED to be concurrently heard with Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Quantum Transportation, LP’s Motion to Set Aside Default is CONTINUED TO NOV 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Plaintiff Amazon Produce Network of California, LLC’s Motion to Strike Answer and Cross-Complaint is also CONTINUED TO NOV 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 to be concurrently heard and decided with Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside

Moving party is ordered to give notice.