This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/21/2021 at 21:06:18 (UTC).

COEUR SPORTS, INC. VS GDMC USA, LLC

Case Summary

On 08/06/2019 COEUR SPORTS, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GDMC USA, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES R. DUNN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1392

  • Filing Date:

    08/06/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JAMES R. DUNN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

COEUR SPORTS INC.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

GDMC USA LLC DBA VOMAX A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

WELLS MICHELLE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

RUBIN STEVEN DAVID

 

Court Documents

Status Report

2/9/2021: Status Report

Answer

10/1/2020: Answer

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF GDMC USA, LLC

9/10/2020: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF GDMC USA, LLC

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/17/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Cross-Complaint

7/13/2020: Cross-Complaint

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

4/6/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Statement

4/6/2020: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

4/1/2020: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/13/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

2/24/2020: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT (CCP 473.5); CA...)

2/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT (CCP 473.5); CA...)

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/3/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

RETURNED MAIL

10/8/2019: RETURNED MAIL

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/21/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHELLE J. WELLS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT AGAINST GDMC USA, LLC DOING BUSINESS AS VOMAX

10/21/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHELLE J. WELLS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT AGAINST GDMC USA, LLC DOING BUSINESS AS VOMAX

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

10/21/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Summary of the Case

10/21/2019: Summary of the Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/6/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/20/2021
  • Hearing04/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2021
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department STL-C, James R. Dunn, Presiding; MSC Timeslot (Judge James R. Dunn)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Hearing on Demurrer - without Mot...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
44 More Docket Entries
  • 10/08/2019
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Coeur Sports, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19SMCV01392    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Coeur Sports, Inc. v. GDMC USA, LLC, Case No. 19SMCV01392

Hearing Date September 17, 2020

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Coeur Sports’ Demurrer to Cross-Complaint

Coeur Sports entered into an athletic apparel manufacturing agreement with Vomax, which alleges it manufactured apparel according to specifications, but Coeur Sports failed to place promised orders. Coeur Sports, as cross-defendant, demurs to Vomax’s second cause of action for fraud.

A breach of contract cannot be litigated as a tort claim unless defendant breached an independent, non-contractual legal duty. Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 554. Under the economic loss rule, plaintiff cannot recover in tort for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations unless she demonstrates harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988. The economic loss rule does not bar tort claims when the contract was fraudulently induced. Id. at 990.

An actionable misrepresentation must be about past or existing facts; statements regarding future events are nonactionable opinions. Francisco Design Center Assoc. v. Portman Cos. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 29, 43-44. A cause of action for promissory fraud can lie when plaintiff makes a promise with no intent to perform. Bondi v. Jewels by Ewar, Ltd. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 672, 677.

Coeur cites Erlich and Robinson Helicopter for the proposition that Vomax’s claims lie in contract, not in tort. This misapplies Robinson, which held the economic loss rule does not bar tort claims where the contract was fraudulently induced. Vomax alleges Coeur fraudulently induced it to enter into a manufacturing agreement by misrepresenting its intention to place promised orders and to use Vomax as its exclusive manufacturer. Cross-Complaint at ¶¶9, 25, 26. The economic loss rule does not bar Vomax’s fraud cause of action.

Coeur Sports argues Vomax has not adequately alleged a misrepresentation regarding an existing fact or promissory fraud. While a failure to perform a contractual promise is, without more, insufficient to establish a fraud cause of action, Vomax alleged Coeur Sports made multiple promises with no intent to perform, adequate to allege misrepresentation. Cross-complaint ¶¶9, 26. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND APPEAR REMOTELY VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

Case Number: 19SMCV01392    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: P

 

Couer v Vomax motion for leave to file cross-complaint

TENTATIVE RULING

The parties formed a contract for Vomax to manufacture Couer’s apparel. Vomax alleg. edly failed to return raw materials provided by Coeur. Default was entered in favor of plaintiff, but Vomax successfully moved to set aside the default. Vomax moves for leave to file a cross-complaint.

If a defendant’s cause of action against a plaintiff is related to the subject matter of the complaint, it must be raised in a cross-complaint or be barred in any later lawsuit. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §426.30. A party that fails to file a cross-complaint required under the above statute whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause” may apply for leave to file a cross-complaint. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §426.50. §426.50 is to be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture. Silver Orgs v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.

The proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same contract for manufacturing apparel that formed the basis of Coeur Sports’ initial complaint. The initial complaint alleges Vomax failed to return raw materials under the contract, the cross-complaint alleges Coeur Sports failed to make mandated payments under the same contract. Because both claims arise out of alleged breaches of the same subject matter (the manufacturing contract), Vomax’s cross-complaint is mandatory under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §426.50. Although the cross-complaint was not timely filed, considering the preference for liberal construction set forth in Silver Orgs., the requested leave is appropriate. GRANTED. Cross-complaint to be filed within 15 court days.

IN LIGHT OF THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND ORAL ARGUMENTS VIA COURT CALL.

Case Number: 19SMCV01392    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Coeur Sports, Inc. v. GDMC USA, LLC, Case No. 19SMCV01392

Hearing Date: February 27, 2020

Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Default

Default was entered against defendant on October 3, 2019. Defendant moves to set it aside under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b), arguing that it failed to file a responsive pleading because of mistake or excusable neglect.

A court may relieve a party from a “judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473(b). There is a strong public policy in favor of resolving matters on the merits, rather than via default or other procedural grounds. Barrington v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 146, 152. When setting aside a default, a court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees to the non-defaulting party and sanctions of no more than $1,000.00 against the defaulting party. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473, Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 816, 822-823.

The complaint was substituted served on Catie Moores, the customer service representative at defendant’s Northampton office, on August 12, 2019. Defendant states Moores subsequently left her job and did not notify defendant’s Officer-in-Charge Rajiv Singh of the service. Singh states he did not learn of the lawsuit until October 28, 2019, when he returned to the Northampton office after several months and discovered the complaint among Moores’ papers. Plaintiff argues the default should not be set aside because the complaint was properly served, defendant was advised of impending legal action prior to service of the complaint, and Coer served its request for entry of default on defendant.

The strong public policy is in favor of deciding matters on the merits; the court accepts defendant’s statement that it did not have notice of the lawsuit until October 28, 2019, after which it moved with haste to set aside. The court awards plaintiff’s requested attorney’s fees and sanctions under Code of Civ. Proc. §473 and Rogalski.

The motion is GRANTED, and the default will be set aside. Defendant to pay a total of $4,824.95 in fees and sanctions, within 30 days.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer RUBIN STEVEN DAVID