ANDREW SCOTT ROBERTSON, ET AL. VS PHASE 5 ENERGY LTD., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
Case Summary
Case Details
-
Case Number:
*******1683
-
Filing Date:
08/26/2021
-
Case Status:
Other
-
Case Type:
Contract - Other Contract
-
Courthouse:
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
CURTIS A. KIN
Party Details
Cross Defendants and Plaintiffs
ROBERTSON ANDREW SCOTT AKA SCOTT ROBERTSON AN INDIVIDUAL
SCOTT ROBERTSON DESIGN LLC
PATTON CHRISTOPHER
Cross Plaintiffs and Defendants
PHASE 5 ENERGY LTD.
PLOUGH PHILIP
SMART ANDREW
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorney
SACKS LEE
Defendant Attorneys
DOWNES PATRICK N.
BARRIOS BRAD F.
Court Documents
8/18/2023: Request for Dismissal
8/2/2023: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
7/14/2023: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
7/5/2023: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
6/16/2023: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
6/16/2023: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF OSC RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE
6/8/2023: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
5/8/2023: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/08/2023
5/8/2023: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
4/19/2023: Cross-Complaint
4/19/2023: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
4/18/2023: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE AMEND ANSWER AND FILE CROSS-COMPL...)
4/11/2023: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
4/7/2023: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SACKS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
4/7/2023: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANDREW SCOTT ROBERTSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
4/7/2023: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
4/3/2023: Notice of Related Case
3/22/2023: Request for Judicial Notice
Docket Entries
- 08/18/2023
-
DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 10/31/2023 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 72 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/18/2023
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2023
-
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Andrew Scott Robertson, et al. on 08/26/2021, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Andrew Scott Robertson and Scott Robertson Design, LLC as to the entire action
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2023
-
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Andrew Scott Robertson (Plaintiff)
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2023
-
DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal: Filed By: Andrew Scott Robertson (Plaintiff); Result: Entered ; Result Date: 08/18/2023 ; As To Parties:
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2023
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service of all Cross-Defendants scheduled for 10/31/2023 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 72 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/18/2023
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2023
-
DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 11/27/2023 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 72 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/18/2023
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2023
-
DocketJury Trial (Estimate: 5 days) scheduled for 12/04/2023 at 09:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 72 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/18/2023
[-] Read Less
- 08/07/2023
-
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 72 - Hon. Joseph Lipnereffective 08/07/2023; Reason: Inventory Transfer
[-] Read Less
- 08/02/2023
-
DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 07/14/2023
-
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 09/16/2021
-
DocketAddress for Lee Sacks (Attorney) updated
[-] Read Less
- 09/16/2021
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 09/16/2021
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service as to ALL named defendants scheduled for 11/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 72
[-] Read Less
- 09/16/2021
-
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 09/16/2021
-
DocketCase Management Conference scheduled for 01/21/2022 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 72
[-] Read Less
- 08/26/2021
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Andrew Scott Robertson (Plaintiff); Scott Robertson Design, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Phase 5 Energy Ltd., a Delaware corporation (Defendant); Andrew Smart, an individual (Defendant); Philip Plough, an individual (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 08/26/2021
-
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Andrew Scott Robertson (Plaintiff); Scott Robertson Design, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Phase 5 Energy Ltd., a Delaware corporation (Defendant); Andrew Smart, an individual (Defendant); Philip Plough, an individual (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 08/26/2021
-
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Andrew Scott Robertson (Plaintiff); Scott Robertson Design, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Phase 5 Energy Ltd., a Delaware corporation (Defendant); Andrew Smart, an individual (Defendant); Philip Plough, an individual (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 08/26/2021
-
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 08/26/2021
-
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Curtis A. Kin in Department 72 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
[-] Read Less
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: *******1683 Hearing Date: April 18, 2023 Dept: 72
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
Date: 4/18/23 (8:30 AM)
Case: Andrew Scott Robertson et al. v. Phase 5 Energy LTD et al. (*******1683)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Phase 5 Energy LTD, Andrew Smart, and Philip Plough’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.
Defendants’ requests to take judicial notice are DENIED as “unnecessary to the resolution” of the issues before the Court. (Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1075.)
Defendants Phase 5 Energy LTD (“Phase 5”), Andrew Smart, and Philip Plough seek leave to file a Cross-Complaint against plaintiffs Scott Robertson and Scott Robertson Design, LLC, as well as Christopher Patton.
Defendants’ proposed claims are compulsory because they arise out of the operation of Phase 5, a defendant in the Complaint and a proposed cross-complainant. (See CCP 426.10(c) [“‘Related cause of action’ means a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.”]; Proposed XC 1-5.) In the Complaint, plaintiffs Andrew Scott Robertson and Scott Robertson Design, LLC seek damages against Phase 5 and its officers, defendants Andrew Smart, and Philip Plough, for breach of agreements regarding their compensation, return on investments, and unpaid rent and for destruction of the value of Robertson’s shares in Phase 5 arising from the termination of Phase 5’s business. In the proposed Cross-Complaint, defendants allege that the cause of the harm alleged in the Complaint is the fault of Robertson and Patton. (Proposed XC 1, 104, 105.)
Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the ground that the proposed Cross-Complaint is duplicative of another action filed in Florida and that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Patton. In the interest of avoiding forfeiture of any causes of action, as required under CCP 426.50, plaintiffs’ contentions do not bar the filing of the Cross-Complaint. Patton may seek any relief to which he believes he is entitled after the filing of the Cross-Complaint.
Plaintiffs also contend that the Cross-Complaint is not proposed in good faith because defendants were purportedly aware of the claims against Patton since February 2021 and did not file this motion until two years later. Defendants adequately explain that, after their current counsel substituted into the action in February 2023, counsel reviewed the file and discovered the claims against plaintiffs. (Downes Decl. 2, 3.) Plaintiffs fail to show substantial evidence of bad faith that would warrant denial of the filing of the proposed Cross-Complaint. (Silver Organization, Ltd v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99 [“A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result”].)
The motion is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to file the Cross-Complaint as proposed in the motion within two (2) court days hereof.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases