This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/09/2021 at 00:18:48 (UTC).

ACTYON TIRE USA INC VS SANJEET SINGH VEEN ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/12/2017 ACTYON TIRE USA INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SANJEET SINGH VEEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8297

  • Filing Date:

    07/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

ACTYON TIRE USA INC

ACTYON TIRE USA INC.

Respondents, Defendants and Not Classified By Court

SINGH SAM

DOES 1 TO 20

KANDHARI PRITHPAL

SAN JEET SINGH VEEN

VEEN SAN JEET SINGH

VEEN SANJEET SINGH AKA SAM SINGH

KANDHARI PRITHPAL AKA PAUL KANDHARI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

WU SAM X.J. ESQ.

WU SAM X. J.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

HOPKINS CAMERON A. ESQ.

BLOOM AARON B.

 

Court Documents

Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWERS TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/9/2021: Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWERS TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWERS; AND SET AN OSC RE PLAINTIFFS SUSPENDED CORPORATE STATUS; DECL

2/10/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWERS; AND SET AN OSC RE PLAINTIFFS SUSPENDED CORPORATE STATUS; DECL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON MOT...)

2/11/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON MOT...)

Notice of Ruling

2/11/2021: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Settlement

2/19/2021: Notice of Settlement

Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL "NOT ENTERED"

3/9/2021: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL "NOT ENTERED"

Request for Dismissal

3/23/2021: Request for Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERE...) OF 07/24/2020

7/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERE...) OF 07/24/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERE...)

7/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERE...)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/18/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

6/2/2020: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS]

4/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS]

Unknown - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS

4/23/2020: Unknown - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...)

4/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...) OF 04/28/2020

4/28/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...) OF 04/28/2020

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/8/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/02/2020

4/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/02/2020

113 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/07/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/23/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Actyon Tire USA Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal ("NOT ENTERED"); Filed by Actyon Tire USA Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Answer) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/04/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Answer) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial ((estimate3-4 days)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Actyon Tire USA Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/11/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWERS; AND SET AN OSC RE PLAINTIFF?S SUSPENDED CORPORATE STATUS; DECLARATIONS OF AARON B. BLOOM AND CAMERON A. HOPKINS IN SUPPORT THEREOF) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/11/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Prithpal Kandhari (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
172 More Docket Entries
  • 12/12/2017
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Sanjeet Singh Veen (Defendant); Sam Singh (Legacy Party); Prithpal Kandhari (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/05/2017
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/05/2017
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Actyon Tire USA Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/12/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/12/2017
  • DocketSTATEMENT OF DAMAGES [CCP 425.115]

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Actyon Tire USA Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/12/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1) BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8297    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: 48

(1) NOTICE OF JOINDER;

(2) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS RE: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant Sanjeet Singh Veen

(2) Defendant Prithpal Kandhari;

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No opposition;

(2) Plaintiff Actyon Tire USA Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Notice of Joinder

Defendant Prithpal Kandhari’s notice of joinder in the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as timely.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of court documents pertaining to BC638278 and ****8297 is GRANTED per Evid. Code ; 452(d).

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Aaron B. Bloom reflects that the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP ; 439 was satisfied.

Discussion

Defendant Sanjeet Singh Veen moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire 2AC on the grounds that: 1) Plaintiff released the claims against Defendants by way of a written settlement agreement and release, 2) Plaintiff’s claims were merged into the judgment entered in BC638278, and 3) alter ego is not a substantive claim and can be asserted in the prior case.

The Court notes that Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action was sustained without leave to amend. See October 4, 2019 minute order.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the settlement and release did not purport to release a future breach of the very settlement and release agreement itself. Nothing purports to waive all future claims which may arise between the parties arising out of the Settlement Agreement itself. See Opposition at Page 4, citing ; 5.1 of the Settlement Agreement. The present action is based upon the breach of the settlement agreement.

However, Defendant’s argument that the first cause of action for breach of contract in this action was merged with the prior judgment is persuasive. This is an argument based in res judicata.

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a valid, final judgment on the merits is a bar to a subsequent action by parties or their privies on the same cause of action. … In California, a ‘cause of action’ is defined by the  [*576]  ‘primary right’ theory. ‘The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible: the violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action.’ … In particular, the primary right theory provides that a cause of action consists of (1) a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding duty devolving upon the defendant, and (3) a delict or wrong done by the defendant which consists of a breach of the primary right. … ‘ “If the matter was within the scope of the action, related to the subject matter and relevant to the issues, so that it could have been raised, the judgment is conclusive on it … . The reason for this is manifest. A party cannot by negligence or design withhold issues and litigate them in consecutive actions. Hence the rule is that the prior judgment is res judicata on matters which were raised or could have been raised, on matters litigated or litigable. …” ’ ” (Amin v. Khazindar (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 582, 589–590 [5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224], citations omitted.)

Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575-76 (italics omitted, bold emphasis and underlining added).

Here, Plaintiff could have named individual Defendants Singh and Kandhar individually in the first lawsuit for breach of settlement agreement, i.e., a claim holding them liable based on contractual promises they made in their individual capacity. See 2AC, ¶¶ 51 – 56. Accordingly, this cause of action is barred by res judicata by virtue of the May 4, 2017 judgment entered in BC638278. See RJN, Exh. D.

However, as to the third cause of action seeking declaratory relief as to alter ego liability against the individual Defendants, assertion of this theory in this separate action is proper. A plaintiff may bring a separate action on an alter ego theory:

A claim based upon an alter ego theory is not itself a claim for substantive relief. (Hennessey's Tavern, Inc. v. American Air Filter Co. (1988)  [*419]  204 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1359 [251 Cal. Rptr. 859].) It is a procedural device by which courts will disregard the corporate entity in order to hold the alter ego individual liable on the obligations of the corporation. (Ibid.) Because it is not a substantive claim that has been decided, we do not necessarily rule out the possibility that plaintiffs could still recover from Cooper individually if they obtain a judgment that the corporation is unable to satisfy. Under some circumstances a judgment against a corporation may be amended to add a nonparty alter ego as a judgment debtor. (Hall, Goodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. v. Marconi Conf. Center Bd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1555 [49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 286]; Code Civ. Proc., ; 187.) “This is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant.” (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778 [256 Cal. Rptr. 441].) It is also possible for a party to bring a wholly separate action against the individual to enforce a prior judgment against the corporation on an alter ego theory. (Brenelli Amedeo, S.P.A. v. Bakara Furniture, Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1828, 1840 [35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 348].)

Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 417-19 (bold emphasis added).

Defendant’s argument that Leek is distinguishable and the facts of this case bar a separate action, but not a motion to amend the judgment in the prior action is not persuasive. The Court sees no distinction between seeking to amend the judgment to add alter ego judgment debtors in the prior action and seeking a judgment against those same purported alter ego individuals in a separate action. In any event, the Court notes that if Defendant were truly concerned about proceeding in the prior action, Defendant would have filed a notice of related cases as soon as this action were filed.

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action is DENIED.



Case Number: ****8297    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: 48

(1) NOTICE OF JOINDER;

(2) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS RE: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant Sanjeet Singh Veen

(2) Defendant Prithpal Kandhari;

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No opposition;

(2) Plaintiff Actyon Tire USA Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Notice of Joinder

Defendant Prithpal Kandhari’s notice of joinder in the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as timely.

Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings

Request For Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of court documents pertaining to BC638278 and ****8297 is GRANTED per Evid. Code ; 452(d).

Discussion

Defendant Sanjeet Singh Veen moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire 2AC on the grounds that Plaintiff released the claims against Defendants by way of a written settlement agreement and release, Plaintiff’s claims were merged into the judgment entered in BC638278, and alter ego is not a substantive claim and can be asserted in the prior case.

The Court notes that Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action was sustained without leave to amend. See October 4, 2019 minute order.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the settlement and release did not purport to release a future breach of the very settlement and release agreement itself. Nothing purports to waive all future claims which may arise between the parties arising out of the Settlement Agreement itself. See Opposition at Page 4, citing ; 5.1 of the Settlement Agreement. The present action is based upon the breach of the settlement agreement.

However, Defendant’s argument that the first cause of action for breach of contract in this action was merged with the prior judgment is persuasive. This is an argument based in res judicata.

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a valid, final judgment on the merits is a bar to a subsequent action by parties or their privies on the same cause of action. … In California, a ‘cause of action’ is defined by the  [*576]  ‘primary right’ theory. ‘The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible: the violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action.’ … In particular, the primary right theory provides that a cause of action consists of (1) a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding duty devolving upon the defendant, and (3) a delict or wrong done by the defendant which consists of a breach of the primary right. … ‘ “If the matter was within the scope of the action, related to the subject matter and relevant to the issues, so that it could have been raised, the judgment is conclusive on it … . The reason for this is manifest. A party cannot by negligence or design withhold issues and litigate them in consecutive actions. Hence the rule is that the prior judgment is res judicata on matters which were raised or could have been raised, on matters litigated or litigable. …” ’ ” (Amin v. Khazindar (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 582, 589–590 [5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224], citations omitted.)

Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575-76 (italics omitted, bold emphasis and underlining added).

Here, Plaintiff could have named individual Defendants Singh and Kandhar individually in the first lawsuit for breach of settlement agreement, i.e., a claim holding them liable based on contractual promises they made in their individual capacity. See 2AC, ¶¶ 51 – 56. Accordingly, this cause of action is barred by res judicata by virtue of the May 4, 2017 judgment entered in BC638278. See RJN, Exh. D.

However, as to the third cause of action seeking declaratory relief as to alter ego liability against the individual Defendants, assertion of this theory in this separate action is proper. A plaintiff may bring a separate action on an alter ego theory:

A claim based upon an alter ego theory is not itself a claim for substantive relief. (Hennessey's Tavern, Inc. v. American Air Filter Co. (1988)  [*419]  204 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1359 [251 Cal. Rptr. 859].) It is a procedural device by which courts will disregard the corporate entity in order to hold the alter ego individual liable on the obligations of the corporation. (Ibid.) Because it is not a substantive claim that has been decided, we do not necessarily rule out the possibility that plaintiffs could still recover from Cooper individually if they obtain a judgment that the corporation is unable to satisfy. Under some circumstances a judgment against a corporation may be amended to add a nonparty alter ego as a judgment debtor. (Hall, Goodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. v. Marconi Conf. Center Bd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1555 [49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 286]; Code Civ. Proc., ; 187.) “This is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant.” (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778 [256 Cal. Rptr. 441].) It is also possible for a party to bring a wholly separate action against the individual to enforce a prior judgment against the corporation on an alter ego theory. (Brenelli Amedeo, S.P.A. v. Bakara Furniture, Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1828, 1840 [35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 348].)

Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 417-19 (bold emphasis added).

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action is DENIED.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BLOOM AARON B.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HOPKINS, CAMERON A.