Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/24/2021 at 03:41:22 (UTC).

BAXTER, BAILEY, & ASSOCIATES, INC., A CORPORATION, AN ASSIGNEE OF AMERICAN HAULAGE INC., VS COSMETIC LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/11/2020 BAXTER, BAILEY, ASSOCIATES, INC , A CORPORATION, AN ASSIGNEE OF AMERICAN HAULAGE INC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against COSMETIC LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GRACIELA FREIXES. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0405

  • Filing Date:

    03/11/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GRACIELA FREIXES

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BAXTER BAILEY & ASSOCIATES INC. A CORPORATION AN ASSIGNEE OF AMERICAN HAULAGE INC.

Defendants

DF ENTERPRISES AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY;

ASK MANAGEMENT INC. DBA MSG LOGISTICS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION;

CH ROBINSON WORLDWIDE INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION;

COSMETIC LABORATORIES OF AMERICA INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GRANT RICHARD

Defendant Attorney

HARMAN SUZANNA ROSE

 

Court Documents

Complaint - Complaint

3/11/2020: Complaint - Complaint

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

2/3/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

2/3/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/3/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

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

2/4/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Reply (name extension) - Reply TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

2/11/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Reply (name extension) - Reply DEFENDANT'S REPLY RE NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

11/19/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply DEFENDANT'S REPLY RE NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order/Non-Appearance Case Review)

11/20/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order/Non-Appearance Case Review)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order/Non-Appearance Case Review) of 11/20/2020

11/20/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order/Non-Appearance Case Review) of 11/20/2020

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER

11/20/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF R GRANT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION OF DEMURRER

11/20/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF R GRANT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION OF DEMURRER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment to Non-Collections Limited Hub Court)

11/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment to Non-Collections Limited Hub Court)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

4/15/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Notice (name extension) - Notice DEFENDANT, C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

7/29/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice DEFENDANT, C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/11/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/11/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740) - Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

3/11/2020: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740) - Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/13/2021
  • Hearing09/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Demurrer - without Motion to Strike: Filed By: Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; (Defendant); Result: Sustained without Leave to Amend; Result Date: 02/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc., A Corporation, An Assignee Of American Haulage Inc., on 03/11/2020, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice, causes 2nd, 3rd causes

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 02/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/22/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2021
  • DocketReply TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; Filed by: Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc., A Corporation, An Assignee Of American Haulage Inc., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc., A Corporation, An Assignee Of American Haulage Inc., (Plaintiff); As to: Cosmetic Laboratories Of America, Inc., A California Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketDefault entered as to Cosmetic Laboratories Of America, Inc., A California Corporation;; On the Complaint filed by Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc., A Corporation, An Assignee Of American Haulage Inc., on 03/11/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
21 More Docket Entries
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Demurrer - without Motion to Strike: As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 03/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Graciela Freixes in Department F43 Chatsworth Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc., A Corporation, An Assignee Of American Haulage Inc., (Plaintiff); As to: Cosmetic Laboratories Of America, Inc., A California Corporation; (Defendant); Df Enterprises, An Unknown Business Entity; (Defendant); Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc., A Corporation, An Assignee Of American Haulage Inc., (Plaintiff); As to: Cosmetic Laboratories Of America, Inc., A California Corporation; (Defendant); Df Enterprises, An Unknown Business Entity; (Defendant); Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc., A Corporation, An Assignee Of American Haulage Inc., (Plaintiff); As to: Cosmetic Laboratories Of America, Inc., A California Corporation; (Defendant); Df Enterprises, An Unknown Business Entity; (Defendant); Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc., A Delaware Corporation; (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20CHLC10405    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 26

Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc. v. Cosmetic Laboratories of America, Inc., et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE 1ST, 4TH AND 5TH CAUSES OF ACTION. THE 2ND AND 3RD CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISMISSED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff Baxter, Bailey & Associates, Inc. an assignee of American Haulage, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Ch Worldwide, Inc. (“Defendant Ch Robinson”) and others. Defendant Ch Robinson filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint on April 15, 2020. Thereafter, the case was reassigned to this limited jurisdiction Court. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Demurrer on November 20, 2020 and Defendant Ch Robinson replied on February 11, 2021.

Discussion

The Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Harman Decl., ¶4 and Exh. A.) The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) open book account; (3) account stated; (4) quantum meruit; and (5) unjust enrichment. Defendant Ch Robinson demurs to each cause of action for failure to allege sufficient facts pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e), with an additional demurrer for uncertainty pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) against the second cause of action.

In opposition, Plaintiff asks that the Court dismiss the second and third causes of action as to Defendant Ch Robinson. (Opp., p. 3:10-12.) The Court hereby dismisses the second and third causes of action against Defendant Ch Robinson and will address the Demurrer for failure to allege sufficient facts as to the remaining causes of action.

1st Cause of Action for Breach of Contract

The Complaint alleges that American Haulage, Inc. is a licensed motor carrier that provides transportation services and Defendant Ch Robinson is broker and/or transportation agent with respect to certain shipments at issue in this action. (Compl., ¶¶4, 8.) On or about October 21, 2019, Defendant Ch Robinson allegedly engaged American Haulage, Inc. to provide transportation services for other defendants in this action. (Id. at ¶¶12-14.) American Haulage allegedly performed its obligations under the written Bills of Lading and/or transportation agreements, except those obligations that were excused. (Id. at ¶15.) Defendants allegedly breached the transportation agreements by refusing to pay the unpaid freight charges/services to American Haulage and/or Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶16.)

Defendant Ch Robinson argues that no cause of action for breach of contract can be stated because the Bill of Lading attached the Complaint does not identify American Haulage as the carrier, and in fact does not identify any carrier. This argument directly challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations and is not an improper special demurrer, as the opposition argues. The Bill of Lading is the contractual document setting forth the obligations of the shipper, receiver and carrier. (Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co. (1982) 456 U.S. 336, 342; Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck, & Co. (9th Cir. 2008) 513 F.3d 949, 954.) Plaintiff contends that it is not necessary for the carrier’s name to be on the Bill of Lading by pointing to the allegations in, and the other exhibits attached to, the Complaint. The other exhibits include an invoice and rate of confirmation document. (Compl., Exh. A.) The allegations themselves do state that the contract was between American Haulage and Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶12-14.) However, these allegations are contradicted by the contents of Plaintiff’s own exhibits. When attached exhibits contradict allegations in the pleadings, the exhibits take precedence. (Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 935, 943.)

Each of the exhibits disputes Plaintiff’s allegation that American Haulage had an agreement with Defendant Ch Robinson regarding a shipment. First, the attached invoice is billed from American Haulage to Defendant Ask Management, Inc., not Defendant Ch Robinson. (Compl., Exh. A.) The rate confirmation document was apparently generated by Defendant Ask management, Inc. and names American Haulage as the carrier. (Ibid.) The rate confirmation document also identifies Defendants Cosmetic Laboratories of America, Inc. and an entity called PPG Vice as cosignees. (Ibid.) Defendant Ch Robinson is not named on either the invoice or the rate confirmation document. (Ibid.) Finally, the Bill of Lading mentions Defendant Ch Robinson but does not identify American Haulage as the carrier. (Ibid.) Whether taken separately or in combination, the exhibits attached to the Complaint contradict the allegation that Defendant Ch Robinson and American Haulage had an agreement for transportation services.

Nor does Plaintiff’s third-party beneficiary argument persuade. The opposition does not cite any legal authority to support the idea that a third-party beneficiary can bring an action based on a Bill of Lading. (Opp., pp. 8:7-9:21.) Nor does the Complaint allege that theory; Plaintiff alleges that American Haulage was directly intended to benefit from the parties’ agreement.

The demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract is sustained.

4th Cause of Action for Quantum Meruit

The fourth cause of action for quantum meruit suffers for the same reason as the breach of contract claim: Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged services were rendered to American Haulage at Defendant Ch Robinson’s request. (See Maglica v. Maglica (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 442, 446 n. 2.) Therefore, the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for quantum meruit is also sustained.

5th Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment

There is no cause of action for unjust enrichment in California. Rather, unjust enrichment is “‘the result of a failure to make restitution....’” (Lauriedale Associates, Ltd. v. Wilson (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1448.)

There are several potential bases for a cause of action seeking restitution. For example, restitution may be awarded in lieu of breach of contract damages when the parties had an express contract, but it was procured by fraud or is unenforceable or ineffective for some reason. (See generally 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions, §§ 148–150, pp. 218–220; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts, §§ 112, 118, pp. 137–138, 142–144.) Alternatively, restitution may be awarded where the defendant obtained a benefit from the plaintiff by fraud, duress, conversion, or similar conduct.

(McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 387-388.) For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has not alleged a basis for restitution against Defendant Ch Robinson. There is insufficient allegation to support breach of contract, nor does the Complaint allege Defendant Ch Robinson obtained the benefit of transportation services from American Haulage by “fraud, duress, conversion, or similar conduct.” Accordingly, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action for restitution is sustained.

Leave to Amend

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Complaint can be amended to set forth the necessary facts, as is its burden. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) In order to meet this burden, Plaintiff must apprise the Court of new information that would contribute to meaningful amendments. (Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 749.)

Conclusion

Defendant Ch Robinson Worldwide, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE 1ST, 4TH AND 5TH CAUSES OF ACTION. THE 2ND AND 3RD CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISMISSED.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BAXTER BAILEY & ASSOCIATES AS ASSIGNEE OF BELA TRUCKING INC is a litigant

Latest cases where CH Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRANT RICHARD