Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 21:20:56 (UTC).

MAIN STREET PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES INC VS PRECISION ASSET MAN

Case Summary

On 10/26/2015 MAIN STREET PARTNERS ASSOCIATES INC filed an Other lawsuit against PRECISION ASSET MAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8750

  • Filing Date:

    10/26/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MAIN STREET PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES INC.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-100

PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

EZER WILLIAMSON LAW A PROF. CORP.

DAVIS TEDDY T.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

COUGHLIN FRANK J. ESQ.

WILSON JOHN DAVID

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/27/2018: DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Substitution of Attorney

10/17/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Memorandum of Costs on Appeal

10/26/2018: Memorandum of Costs on Appeal

Minute Order

10/30/2018: Minute Order

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

10/31/2018: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Certificate of Mailing for

11/1/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Notice

11/14/2018: Notice

Answer

5/21/2019: Answer

DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

12/30/2015: DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

NOTICE OF CONUNUED HEARINGS OF DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

5/16/2016: NOTICE OF CONUNUED HEARINGS OF DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6/8/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

6/9/2016: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

6/15/2016: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/26/2016: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO. 2 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/30/2016: DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO. 2 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION?S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2

9/30/2016: DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION?S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2

RULING

10/7/2016: RULING

NOTICE OF ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION TO FILE ITS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

4/13/2017: NOTICE OF ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION TO FILE ITS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

62 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/22/2019
  • Order (Order on Stipulation Re: Filing of Amended Answer to First Amended Complaint); Filed by Precision Asset Management Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Precision Asset Management Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Re: Filing of Amended Answer to First Amended Complaint; and [Proposed] Order Thereon); Filed by Precision Asset Management Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Main Street Partners & Associates Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Main Street Partners & Associates Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Precision Asset Management Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Precision Asset Management Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
118 More Docket Entries
  • 11/02/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2015
  • Receipt; Filed by Main Street Partners & Associates Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Main Street Partners & Associates Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2015
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2015
  • Notice; Filed by Precision Asset Management Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC598750    Hearing Date: July 20, 2020    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party: Defendant Precision Asset Management Corporation

Resp. Party: Plaintiff Main Street Partners & Associates, Inc.

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

This action concerns liability arising from the defendant’s alleged breaches of two contracts and its tortious conduct with respect to these contracts.

On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff Main Street Partners & Associates, Inc. commenced this action against Defendant Precision Asset Management Corporation for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; (4) concealment; (5) intentional misrepresentation; and (6) misappropriation of trade secrets.

On June 22, 2016, the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint in part and sustained the demurrer in part.

On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; (4) concealment; (5) intentional misrepresentation; and (6) misappropriation of trade secrets.

On October 7, 2016, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend.

On December 30, 2016, judgment was entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all claims asserted by Plaintiff in the FAC.

On March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

On September 17, 2018, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur and attached a copy of its decision. In the decision filed on July 16, 2018, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment from the trial court sustaining the demurrer and ordered Plaintiff to recover costs on appeal from Defendant.

On September 27, 2018, Defendant filed an answer to the FAC.

On May 21, 2019, Defendant filed an amended answer to the FAC.

On November 21, 2019, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court ordered that the second amended answer may be filed.

On November 22, 2019, Defendant filed its second amended answer to the FAC.

On March 18, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to bifurcate trial in order to try its dispositive affirmative defense of lack of authority before trying the merits of Plaintiff’s case.

ANALYSIS:

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 597, “[a] separate trial is authorized under that statute when the defendant alleges as an affirmative defense that the action is time-barred or alleges another affirmative defense that is potentially dispositive and that is one ‘not involving the merits of the [plaintiff’s cause of] action.” (Sahadi v. Scheaffer (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 704, 721, review denied, citing Wilshire-Doheny Associates, Ltd. V. Shapiro (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1392.)

“[T]he objective of the bifurcation of the issues is avoidance of waste of time and money caused by the trial of issues which may be rendered moot.” (Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135.)

B. Discussion

Defendant “move[s] for a Separate and First Trial of Plaintiff[’s] . . .  dispositive affirmative defense of lack of authority.” (Motion, pp. 1:27-2:2.) Defendant asserts that “the core allegation of the FAC  . . . is that Precision utilized trade secrets of Main Street in violation of the Agreements with Precision.” (Id. at p. 2:8-9.) Defendant maintains that its twenty-third affirmative defense should be tried first because it would determine “that the Agreements are not valid because Hermosillo, an operations manager of Precision, was not authorized to sign the agreement.” (Id. at p. 2:11-13.) Further, Defendant argues “that Precision’s defense of lack of authority will be (i) dispositive of the FAC in total, and (ii) is based on facts materially separate from facts as alleged in Main Streets [sic] FAC (iii) should not require much time to adjudicate and (iv) should free the court of trying the entire case.” (Id. at p. 2:19-22.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that bifurcation is not appropriate here because (1) “Precision’s defense goes directly to the first element of the breach of contract actions;” (2) “Lack of authority is not a defense to the sixth cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets;” (3) “no interests are served by bifurcating the trial; and” (4) the evidence at trial will demonstrate that Michael Hermosillo had actual and/or apparent authority to enter into the October Agreements.” (Opp., p. 2:17-24.)

Plaintiff’s first two causes of action are for breach of contract and breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. (FAC, ¶¶ 27-39.)

“The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.) “The prerequisite for any action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties, since the covenant is an implied term in the contract.” (Smith v. San Francisco (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 38, 49.)

Defendant’s twenty-third affirmative defense is that “Plaintiff is barred from recovery because any agreements or contracts alleged in the FAC are void, voidable, and/or unenforceable because they were not entered into by any authorized officer of Defendant.” (Second Amended Answer, p. 6:12-16.)

The Court finds that a separate trial is unnecessary here because Defendant’s twenty-third affirmative defense based on lack of authority is one that involves the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, as it determines whether there were enforceable contracts or agreements between the parties. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 597; Sahadi v. Scheaffer, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 721.)

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for bifurcation.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Coughlin, Frank J