This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 00:40:43 (UTC).

LARIANO WARRELL VS GLOBAL INFINITY TRANSPORT INC.

Case Summary

On 12/19/2016 LARIANO WARRELL filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against GLOBAL INFINITY TRANSPORT INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICK T. MADDEN, MICHAEL P. VICENCIA, DEIRDRE HILL and ROSS KLEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0944

  • Filing Date:

    12/19/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PATRICK T. MADDEN

MICHAEL P. VICENCIA

DEIRDRE HILL

ROSS KLEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

JUAN QUEZADA

MARVIN RAMIREZ

LARIANO WARRELL

SANTOS CARLOS

WARRELL LARIANO

CARLOS SANTOS

QUEZADA JUAN

RAMIREZ MARVIN

Defendants

DOE 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

GLOBAL INFINITY TRANSPORT INC.

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

UNITED GLOBAL EXPRESS INC. A CORP.

YIM KEVIN

LAURA EACH NGUYEN LAW OFFICE OF

GLOBAL INFINITY TRANSPORT INC.KEVIN YIM

UNITED GLOBAL EXPRESS INC. KEVIN YIM

KEVIN YIM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK

JENKINS MICHAEL ANTHONY

Defendant Attorneys

NGUYEN LAURA EACH

LAURA EACH NGUYEN LAW OFFICE OF

CHERNIS LAW GROUP P.C.

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/19/2016: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Minute Order

4/28/2017: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

5/9/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

6/8/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/6/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/17/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

10/31/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

4/26/2018: Minute Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

4/26/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice of Stay of Proceedings

7/20/2018: Notice of Stay of Proceedings

Notice of Stay of Proceedings

7/23/2018: Notice of Stay of Proceedings

Notice of Motion

7/25/2018: Notice of Motion

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

8/29/2018: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/24/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Opposition

2/13/2019: Opposition

Reply

2/19/2019: Reply

Minute Order

2/26/2019: Minute Order

50 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/15/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Fourth Amended Complaint) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Fourth Amended Complaint)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Reply (REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND); Filed by LARIANO WARRELL (Plaintiff); JUAN QUEZADA (Plaintiff); MARVIN RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Opposition (to Motion for Leave to Amend); Filed by KEVIN YIM (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (EX PARTE BY PLAINTIFF FOR A 30-DAY TRIAL CONTINUANCE) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • Minute Order ( (EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF FOR A 30-DAY TRIAL CONTINUA...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (EX PARTE BY PLAINTIFF FOR A 30-DAY TRIAL CONTINUANCE); Filed by LARIANO WARRELL (Plaintiff); JUAN QUEZADA (Plaintiff); MARVIN RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
132 More Docket Entries
  • 01/10/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by LARIANO WARRELL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2017
  • Proof of Service (OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PARTY SERVED: GLOBAL INFINITY TRANSPORT INC. PERSON SERVED: SAMMI YIM BY PERSONAL SERVICE ON 12/21/16 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by LARIANO WARRELL (Plaintiff); JUAN QUEZADA (Plaintiff); MARVIN RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Complaint Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by LARIANO WARRELL (Plaintiff); JUAN QUEZADA (Plaintiff); MARVIN RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by LARIANO WARRELL (Plaintiff); JUAN QUEZADA (Plaintiff); MARVIN RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC060944    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

LARIANO WARRELL,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

NC060944

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

GLOBAL INFINITY TRANSPORT INC.,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: November 13, 2019

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Lariano Warrell, Juan Quezada, Marvin Ramirez, and Carlos Santos

Responding Party: None

Motion for Leave to File Amend Fourth Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file their amended complaint within five days.

BACKGROUND

On December 19, 2016, plaintiffs Lariano Warrell, Juan Quezada, and Marvin Ramirez filed a complaint against Global Infinity Transport Inc. and United Global Express Inc. for numerous violations of the Labor Code.

On March 9, 2017, plaintiffs filed a FAC, adding Kevin Yim as a defendant.

On June 21, 2017, plaintiffs filed a SAC.

On October 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a TAC.

On July 23, 2018, defendant Kevin Yim filed a notice of stay of proceedings based upon a bankruptcy petition.

On July 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intent to Proceed with Action against Codefendants Who Are Not in Bankruptcy.

On August 29, 2018, defense counsel was relieved as counsel for United Global Express, Inc. and Global Infinity Transport, Inc.

On February 26, 2019, the court stayed the case in its entirety, stating that plaintiff’s counsel may seek relief from the bankruptcy court or move the court to bifurcate the case as to the non-bankrupt defendants.

On August 21, 2019, plaintiff Lariano Warrell dismissed defendant Kevin Yim.

On August 28, 2019, plaintiffs Juan Quezada and Carlos Santos dismissed defendant Yim.

On September 27, 2019, plaintiff Marvin Ramirez dismissed defendant Yim.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 471, 486-488.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to add damage amounts to the prayer for relief for purposes of seeking a default judgment; add to the claim for unpaid minimum wages the types of work for which unpaid minimum wages are owed; correct a typographical error in referring to a subpart of one of the Labor Code sections cited in the complaint; and to remove defendant Kevin Yim, who has been dismissed from the complaint.

Plaintiffs have complied with CRC Rule 3.1324. There is no opposition.

In light of the liberal policy in favor of amendment, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to file their amended complaint within five days.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.