This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 09:53:48 (UTC).

PCM SALES, INC. VS KENCO GROUP, INC.

Case Summary

On 08/15/2017 PCM SALES, INC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against KENCO GROUP, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0598

  • Filing Date:

    08/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

PCM SALES INC.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

KENCO GROUP INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

DAVIS GLENN DARRYL

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SHAYNE JOSHUA BEN

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - TO CONTINUE TRIAL

6/13/2018: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Order (name extension) - TO CONTINUE TRIAL

6/26/2018: Order (name extension) - TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Order (name extension) - Order (Proposed) Order to Continue Trial and Related Statutory Cut-Off Dates

12/11/2018: Order (name extension) - Order (Proposed) Order to Continue Trial and Related Statutory Cut-Off Dates

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Related Statutory Cut-off Dates; [Proposed] Order

4/8/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Related Statutory Cut-off Dates; [Proposed] Order

Answer

1/29/2018: Answer

Minute Order - (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) without Demurrer...)

1/9/2018: Minute Order - (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) without Demurrer...)

Opposition (name extension)

12/26/2017: Opposition (name extension)

Opposition (name extension)

12/26/2017: Opposition (name extension)

Proof of Personal Service

12/18/2017: Proof of Personal Service

Declaration (name extension)

11/13/2017: Declaration (name extension)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Portions of Cross Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

11/7/2017: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Portions of Cross Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

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

11/6/2017: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Cross-Complaint

9/29/2017: Cross-Complaint

Answer

9/29/2017: Answer

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

10/11/2017: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/15/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

8/15/2017: Complaint

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

8/15/2017: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/03/2019
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/09/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A updated: Result Date to 04/08/2019; Result Type to Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Stipulation and Order Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Related Statutory Cut-off Dates; [Proposed] Order; Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Updated -- Stipulation and Order Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Related Statutory Cut-off Dates; [Proposed] Order: Filed By: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 04/08/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • Order (Proposed) Order to Continue Trial and Related Statutory Cut-Off Dates; Signed and Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial Date and Related Statutory Cut-Off Dates; (Proposed) Order; Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • Order TO CONTINUE TRIAL; Signed and Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 09/29/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by: Kenco Group, Inc. (Cross-Complainant); As to: PCM Sales, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • Answer; Filed by: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2017
  • Case assigned to Hon. Thomas D. Long in Department B Norwalk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2017
  • OSC - Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 08/15/2018 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department B

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • The case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17NWLC00598    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: SEC

PCM SALES, INC. v. KENCO GROUP, INC.

CASE NO.: 17NWLC00598

HEARING: 01/30/2020

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants JOSE GUADALUPE MURGUIA and MURGUIA CONSTRUCTION, INC.’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of January 28, 2020.

The proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint, attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Joshua Shayne is DEEMED SERVED AND FILED as of the date of this hearing.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant KENCO GROUP, INC. (“Kenco”) moves for an order allowing Kenco to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint to assert an equitable claim for unjust enrichment based on the same facts asserted in the original Cross-Complaint, based on the discovery and/or evidence exchanged between the parties.

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Here, the Court finds that Kenco should be afforded the opportunity to allege an additional claim for unjust enrichment, which stems from the same facts already alleged. Cross-Defendant(s) maintain their right to demur, file a motion to strike, or move for summary judgment. Kenco’s unopposed Motion is granted.