This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 09:41:17 (UTC).

ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL VS THE VOLLRATH C

Case Summary

On 04/03/2017 ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against THE VOLLRATH C. 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 R. FEFFER, RICHARD FRUIN, HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6313

  • Filing Date:

    04/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH R. FEFFER

RICHARD FRUIN

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PRISM MARKETING CORPORATION

LEVINE STEVEN J.

ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 200

VOLLRATH COMPANY LLC THE

KOEHL RICHARD

WILDER COLLEEN J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SCHRECK RAYMOND C. ESQ.

SCHRECK RAYMOND CHARLES ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

EISEN DAVID S. ESQ.

EISEN DAVID STUART

AURISCH ALEXANDRA CAROLINE ESQ.

CHOE AMY J.

 

Court Documents

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ETC.

2/16/2018: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ETC.

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY ACTION AND ON REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

2/28/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY ACTION AND ON REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Unknown

1/2/2019: Unknown

Unknown

1/22/2018: Unknown

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF SERVICE; AND NOVEMBER 1, 2017 MINUTE ORDER DISCHARGING OSC RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

1/19/2018: PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF SERVICE; AND NOVEMBER 1, 2017 MINUTE ORDER DISCHARGING OSC RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY, INC., PRISM MARKETING CORPORATION, AND STEVEN J. LEVINE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY

1/12/2018: OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY, INC., PRISM MARKETING CORPORATION, AND STEVEN J. LEVINE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING IN DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ACTION

1/2/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING IN DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ACTION

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR ETC.

11/30/2017: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR ETC.

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY ACTION; ETC.

11/30/2017: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY ACTION; ETC.

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCBDURE SECTION 170.6 TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE RICHARD FRUIN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

12/11/2017: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCBDURE SECTION 170.6 TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE RICHARD FRUIN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

DEFENDANTS' PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE ELIZABETH FEFFER UNDER CCP 170.6; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATION

11/6/2017: DEFENDANTS' PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE ELIZABETH FEFFER UNDER CCP 170.6; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATION

Minute Order

11/9/2017: Minute Order

COMPLAINT (1)-(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

4/3/2017: COMPLAINT (1)-(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/6/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

4/6/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1)-(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETC

8/21/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1)-(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETC

Unknown

8/21/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/22/2017: Unknown

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Vollrath Company, LLC, The (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY ACTION AND ON REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • Order; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 42; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-01-25 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
57 More Docket Entries
  • 08/21/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Advanced Frozen Treat Technology, Inc. (Plaintiff); Prism Marketing Corporation (Plaintiff); Steven J. Levine (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • COMPLAINT (1)-(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC656313    Hearing Date: December 24, 2019    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Advance frozen treat technology, inc., PRISM MARKETING CORPORATION, and STEVEN J. LEVINE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

The vollrath company, L.L.C., richard koehl, colleen j. wilder, and DOES 1 through 200,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC656313

Hearing Date: December 24, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’s motions For leave to file second amended complaint

Background

On April 3, 2017, Plaintiffs Advanced Frozen Treat, Prism Marketing Corporation, and Steven J. Levine (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated the instant action against defendants The Vollrath Company, L.L.C., Richard Koehl, and Colleen J. Wilder (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. On January 25, 2018, this action was stayed due to a proceeding in on a related matter in the Eastern District Court of Wisconsin. On November 15, 2019, the court lifted the stay in its entirety. The court noted that Plaintiffs could must timely file and serve motion for leave to amend to be heard on 12/24/19 or Plaintiff could file a stipulation if all Defendants agreed to stipulate to leave to amend. (See Minute Order 11/15/19.) Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to amend on December 3, 2019. Plaintiffs did not include the proposed amended complaint with their moving papers. Instead, Plaintiffs filed the proposed Second Amended Complaint with the Declaration of Raymond C. Schreck on December 11, 2019. Plaintiffs did not file any proof of service. However, Defendants filed an opposition on December 13, 2019 with a stipulation from Plaintiffs to allow the late filing. (Choe Decl. at ¶ 9., Opposition Exhibit E.) Additionally, Defendants have requested judicial notice of 23 exhibits.

On December 17, 2019, Defendants filed a case management statement requesting that the court grant a stipulation between the parties which would allow Plaintiffs leave to file an amended pleading and which would stay discovery while Defendants’ anticipated demurrer to the amended pleading is pending. (Case Management Statement 12/17/19.) Plaintiffs filed the stipulation and proposed order on December 17, 2019. On December 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a reply acknowledging the stipulation between the parties for leave to amend.

Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Procedural Requirements

Timeliness

“Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (CCP § 1005(b).) The time is determined by counting backwards from the hearing date (plus any additional days required because of mailing or other method of service), excluding the day of the hearing. (CCP § 12c); (see Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 CA4th 1032, 1038.) Plaintiffs’ motion was not timely filed as it was filed only 15 court days before the hearing.

Proof of Service

Moving papers must be served on all parties who have appeared in the action, whether or not the motion seeks relief against such parties. (CCP § 1014); (see also Winikow v. Sup.Ct. (Schroeder) (2000) 82 CA 4th 719, 727) (service of notice not required on defendants who have not yet appeared.) Defendants have made appearances. Yet, Plaintiffs failed to file proof of service

CRC § 3.1324 Requirements

Further, Plaintiffs failed to file the Second Amended Complaint with the motion for leave as required under CRC § 3.1324. Instead, Plaintiffs did not file the Second Amended Complaint until eight days later, on December 11, 2019. Additionally, the amended complaint does not point out the specific changes from the first amended complaint with the proposed second amended complaint. (CRC § 3.1324.)

Stipulation

The court has granted the parties’ stipulated request to allow the filing of a Second Amended Complaint and to stay discovery. Therefore, motion is moot. However, for future reference Plaintiffs must timely follow all procedural requirements.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request for judicial notice is granted. (Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibits A-W.)

//

//

//

//

//

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend complaint is MOOT as the court has signed the proposed order that the parties filed with their stipulation on December 17, 2019.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: December 24, 2019 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court