DIVISION SIX SPORTS INC VS SHAUN WHITE ET AL
Case Summary
On 05/06/2016 DIVISION SIX SPORTS INC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against SHAUN WHITE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****9646
-
Filing Date:
05/06/2016
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Party Details
Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant
DIVISION SIX SPORTS INC.
Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs
CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY
TARGET CORPORATION
WHITE SHAUN
SHAUN WHITE ENTERPRISES INC.
DOES 1 - 50
Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff
SHAUN WHITE ENTERPRISES INC.
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
KILLIAN WILFRED J. ESQ.
MILMAN RACHEL S.
ISENBERG RYAN L
Defendant Attorneys
HOLDEN CRAIG EUGENE ESQ.
CHOI VIRGINIA MARCELA ESQ.
HARDER CHARLES JOHN
PURITSKY COURTNEY L.
Court Documents
3/7/2018: ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS SHAUN WHITE AND SHAUN WHITE ENTERPRISES FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
3/9/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS SHAUN WHITE AND SHAUN WHITE ENTERPRISES FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
6/19/2018: R[SPONDENTS NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)
5/23/2019: Notice
5/23/2019: Notice
9/27/2016: Minute Order
12/12/2016: DEFENDANT CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1/30/2017: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT TARGET; ETC
2/23/2017: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
3/2/2017: STIPULATION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC
5/24/2017: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CAA'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.
6/13/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIALITY
7/21/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
8/1/2017: PLAINTIFF DIVISION SIX SPORTS, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SHAUN WHITE ENTERPRISES, INC.'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; DECLARATION OF
8/15/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT SHAUN WHITE ENTERPRISES, INC. TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO SWE'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT
8/24/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON CREATIVE ARTIST ACENCY'S DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/11/2017: DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION'S NOTICE RE: COURT'S NOTICE RESCHEDULING HEARING
9/28/2017: Minute Order
Docket Entries
- 05/23/2019
-
Notice (TO PLAINTIFF DIVISION SIX SPORTS, INC. AND FORMER DEFENDANT CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY PURSUANT TO C.R.C. 2.551(b)(3)(A)(iii) OF LODGING DOCUMENTS DESIGNATED AS "CONFIDENTIAL"); Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/23/2019
-
Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/23/2019
-
Notice (AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT SHAUN WHITE ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE LTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/23/2019
-
Separate Statement; Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/23/2019
-
Declaration (and Exhibits iso Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/23/2019
-
Notice (AND MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS 18 AND 19 FILED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF ALLEN B. GRODSKY IN SUPPORT THEREOF); Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/23/2019
-
Notice (Public Redacted Version -- Defendant's Appendix of Confidential Exhibits iso Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/23/2019
-
Notice (of Lodging iin support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/20/2019
-
Association of Attorney; Filed by Shaun White Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)
- 05/16/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 19; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held
- 07/29/2016
-
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.
- 06/29/2016
-
Notice; Filed by Creative Artists Agency (Defendant)
- 06/29/2016
-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING THE STIPLUATION TO EXTEND PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT AND TO SUSPEND DEFENDANTS' RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS FILED
- 06/23/2016
-
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT AND TO SUSPEND DEFENDANTS' RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS FILED
- 06/23/2016
-
Stipulation and Order; Filed by Defendant/Respondent
- 05/10/2016
-
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 05/10/2016
-
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 05/06/2016
-
Complaint; Filed by Division Six Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)
- 05/06/2016
-
SUMMONS
- 05/06/2016
-
PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC619646 Hearing Date: January 28, 2020 Dept: 19
Rulings:
1. Jury Questionnaire:
After further consideration, the Court does not approve Question 31, and orders that it be removed from the jury questionnaire.
2. Ruling on SWE's Motion in Limine No. 4 -
SWE's Motion in Limine No. 4. is DENIED. The Court suggests that the parties discuss a special instruction (without case citations) on this issue, to be discussed at the next FSC. For example the special instruction could read:
“The implied promise [of good faith and fair dealing] requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” (Citing Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 818 [159 Cal. Rptr. 482, 598 P.2d 452].) “In essence, the covenant is implied as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the express covenants) frustrates the other party's rights to the benefits of the contract.” (citing Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1153 [271 Cal. Rptr. 246].) However, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not impose substantive terms and conditions beyond those to which the parties actually agreed. (citing Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 349.)
This language was taken from the case cited by Defendants: Avidity Partners, LLC v. State of California, 221 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1204 (2013).
The jury can decide if the Defendants engaged in conduct that frustrated Division 6's rights to the benefits of the contract.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases