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
-
Case Number:
*******0598
-
Filing Date:
08/15/2017
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
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
6/13/2018: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - TO CONTINUE TRIAL
6/26/2018: Order (name extension) - TO CONTINUE TRIAL
12/11/2018: Order (name extension) - Order (Proposed) Order to Continue Trial and Related Statutory Cut-Off Dates
4/8/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Related Statutory Cut-off Dates; [Proposed] Order
1/29/2018: Answer
1/9/2018: Minute Order - (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) without Demurrer...)
12/26/2017: Opposition (name extension)
12/26/2017: Opposition (name extension)
12/18/2017: Proof of Personal Service
11/13/2017: Declaration (name extension)
11/7/2017: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Portions of Cross Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
11/6/2017: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer
9/29/2017: Cross-Complaint
9/29/2017: Answer
10/11/2017: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings
8/15/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
8/15/2017: Complaint
8/15/2017: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)
Docket Entries
- 05/03/2019
-
Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A
- 04/08/2019
-
Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/09/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A
- 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
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 12/11/2018
-
Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A
- 12/11/2018
-
Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department A
- 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)
- 06/26/2018
-
Order TO CONTINUE TRIAL; Signed and Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)
- 09/29/2017
-
Cross-Complaint; Filed by: Kenco Group, Inc. (Cross-Complainant); As to: PCM Sales, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)
- 09/29/2017
-
Answer; Filed by: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)
- 08/16/2017
-
Case assigned to Hon. Thomas D. Long in Department B Norwalk Courthouse
- 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
- 08/15/2017
-
Complaint; Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Kenco Group, Inc. (Defendant)
- 08/15/2017
-
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: PCM Sales, Inc. (Plaintiff)
- 08/15/2017
-
Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
- 08/15/2017
-
Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk
- 08/15/2017
-
Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
- 08/15/2017
-
The case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)
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.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases