This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/21/2019 at 08:24:26 (UTC).

ROBERT W. YAAP VS CADENCE INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIF. CORP

Case Summary

On 08/17/2015 ROBERT W YAAP filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against CADENCE INDUSTRIES, INC , A CALIF CORP. 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 STUART M. RICE, MICHAEL P. VICENCIA, DEIRDRE HILL and MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0781

  • Filing Date:

    08/17/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STUART M. RICE

MICHAEL P. VICENCIA

DEIRDRE HILL

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

YAAP ROBERT W.

CADENCE INDUSTRIES INC. A CALIF. CORP.

JAKE ALLEN BERGMAN

WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC.

ROBERT YAAP

ROES 1-200

CADENCE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY INC.

HUMISTON BRUCE

BERGMAN JAKE ALLEN

YAAP ROBERT

BERGMAN ENTERPRISES INC. ROE 2

ALDERETTE JOE

BERGMAN ENTERPRISES ROE 1

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CADENCE INDUSTRIES INC. A CALIF. CORP.

CADENCE LEASING INC. A CALIF. CORP

DOES 1-30

CADENCE LEASING INC. A CALIF. CORP.

CADENCE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY INC.

OGIE BANKS

BANKS OGIE

Other

MARK EUGENE BRUBAKER ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

EDGAR C. JOHNSON

BRUBAKER MARK EUGENE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

EDGAR C. JOHNSON JR.

TREADWELL & ANDERSON

POINDEXTER & DOUTRE

SENKFOR BURTON MARK

AMIN ISMAIL

TREADWELL MARK ANTHONY

PEMBERTON GARY ALAN

Cross Defendant Attorney

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS

 

Court Documents

Summons

9/23/2015: Summons

Unknown

11/30/2015: Unknown

Unknown

1/15/2016: Unknown

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

2/24/2016: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

3/7/2016: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order

3/7/2016: Minute Order

Other -

3/21/2016: Other -

Unknown

7/29/2016: Unknown

Unknown

8/5/2016: Unknown

Unknown

9/8/2016: Unknown

Unknown

9/14/2016: Unknown

Unknown

8/17/2017: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

7/9/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

8/13/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

10/25/2018: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

Minute Order

11/2/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

1/8/2019: Unknown

Stipulation and Order

1/23/2019: Stipulation and Order

94 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/24/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Trial Date and Final Status Conference); Filed by ROBERT W. YAAP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by OGIE BANKS (Cross-Complainant); Cadence Industries, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant); Cadence Leasing, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by OGIE BANKS (Cross-Complainant); Cadence Industries, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant); Cadence Leasing, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Cadence Electrical Supply, Inc. (Cross-Defendant); JAKE ALLEN BERGMAN (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by ROBERT W. YAAP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
274 More Docket Entries
  • 10/08/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Cadence Industries, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant); Cadence Leasing, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2015
  • Cross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by Cadence Industries, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2015
  • Answer; Filed by Cadence Industries, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant); Cadence Leasing, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2015
  • Cross-Complaint (for Damages; Fraud; Unfair Competition; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Conversion; Breach of Contract; Interference with Contract; Interference with Prospective Advantage; Unjuct Enrichment; Money Had and Received; an Accounting and Injunctive Relief); Filed by OGIE BANKS (Cross-Complainant); Cadence Industries, Inc., a Calif. Corp. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by ROBERT W. YAAP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ROBERT W. YAAP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC070781    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: S27

Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Cadence Electrical Supply, Inc. and Cross-Defendant Jake Bergman move for bifurcation of trial pursuant to CCP §598. The proposed bifurcation would be:

1. Trial of the complaint in its entirety.

2. Liability of the Cross-Defendants (including Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Robert Yapp)

3. Cross-Complainant’s damages

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Robert Yapp joins the motion.

Cross-Complainants Cadence Industries, Inc. and Ogie Banks oppose any bifurcation.

CCP §598:

“The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. Where trial of the issue of liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or parts thereof, and the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon such issue so tried is in favor of any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, judgment in favor of such party shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action as against such party shall be had unless such judgment shall be reversed upon appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated.

If the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon the issue of liability so tried shall be against any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, or if the decision of the court or the verdict of the jury upon any other issue or part thereof so tried does not result in a judgment being entered pursuant to this chapter, then the trial of the other issues or parts thereof shall thereafter be had at such time, and if a jury trial, before the same or another jury, as ordered by the court either upon its own motion or upon the motion of any party, and judgment shall be entered in the same manner and with the same effect as if all the issues in the case had been tried at one time.”

There is no dispute that this motion has been brought more than 30 days before the trial set for January 6, 2020.

Both sides have complicated the issues by unnecessary characterizations and conclusions.

The court does not consider the moving parties’ assertions that Mr. Ogie’s “personal animus” towards them is the source of the cross-complaint. The court also disregards the opposition’s bombastic assertion of “clear” breaches of fiduciary duty.

The issue before the court is whether “economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted” by granting this motion. (Convenience of witnesses is not raised as a basis for bifurcation, and “ends of justice” while always important, are not the crux of the motion.)

From the outset, the court agrees with the opposition that there is no reason to bifurcate liability and damages on the cross-complaint, unless this means bifurcating punitive damages until malice is found by the jury.

If relief is granted, it will be bifurcation of 1) trial on the complaint and 2) trial of Cadence Industries and Ogie Banks’ cross-complaint (Cadence Leasing is also a cross-complainant).

The opposition has raised objections to portions of the declaration of attorney Scott Halberstadt. They are sustained on the grounds of “argumentative.” (“Argumentative” is actually an objection to a form of question. But the portions to which objections are made are legal argument. Legal argument should not be included in a declaration and the true objection is that the argument of counsel is irrelevant as evidence.)

Cutting through the heated verbiage from both sides, the basis for the motion is that the complaint is a simple contract action which will take little time and the cross-complaint has 13 causes of action, some of which are more complicated than simple breach of contract.

The opposition contends that there will be no possible economy or saving of time – the affirmative defenses to the complaint embrace will require much of the same evidence as proving affirmative claims on the cross-complaint – i.e. alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Plaintiffs is a defense to the contract claim as well as an affirmative cause of action.

This might well be true. The court’s concern is potential confusion of the jurors as to what they are hearing at any point in the litigation, a defense or a claim.

Although the court previously mentioned that convenience of witnesses is not an apparent basis for the motion, the opposition does argue that witnesses will be inconvenienced if required to testify twice. There might be merit to this point.

The court will reserve its decision until after hearing oral argument. Counsel are advised to constrain their arguments to the issues of economy, efficiency and convenience.