This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/08/2021 at 02:56:01 (UTC).

COREY LARGE, ET AL VS TUNNEL POST, INC, ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/22/2018 COREY LARGE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TUNNEL POST, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9035

  • Filing Date:

    03/22/2018

  • 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

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

LARGE JODY

BUTLER BAY ENTERPRISES LTD

LARGE COREY

Defendants

LUU JACK

TUNNEL POST INC.

PAO ALAN

DIGITAL COMPLIANCE GROUP INC.

TUNNEL GROUP INC. DOE 4

JAGUAR ENTERTAINMENT CORP. DOE 5

DENOVO DIGITAL DOE 6

Not Classified By Court

LOWE STEVEN T.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LOWE STEVEN T.

LOWE STEVEN TODD

KERNAN STEPHEN MICHAEL

Defendant Attorneys

CABANDAY ORLANDO F.

Attorney at Cabanday Law Group

21221 S Western Ave. Suite 208

Torrance, CA 90501

CABANDAY ORLANDO F

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

8/12/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

7/31/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/31/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

7/1/2020: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

4/20/2020: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/8/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/13/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer - ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TUNNEL INC.; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/17/2019: Answer - ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TUNNEL INC.; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

4/16/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice of Ruling

4/2/2019: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

4/3/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Defendant Tunnel Post, Inc.'s Peremptory Chall...)

1/3/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Defendant Tunnel Post, Inc.'s Peremptory Chall...)

Request - Request TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF STEVEN T. LOWE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY

11/20/2018: Request - Request TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF STEVEN T. LOWE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/16/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling RE: Motion to Deem Defendants' Service of Discovery Responses Invalid, Objections to Discovery Waived, Enter Stipulated Protective Order and Request for Sanctions A

12/4/2018: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling RE: Motion to Deem Defendants' Service of Discovery Responses Invalid, Objections to Discovery Waived, Enter Stipulated Protective Order and Request for Sanctions A

Opposition - Opposition to Motion to Deem Service of Discovery Responses invalid Objections to Discovery Waived Enter Stipulated Protective Order, and Request for Sanctions

11/9/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Motion to Deem Service of Discovery Responses invalid Objections to Discovery Waived Enter Stipulated Protective Order, and Request for Sanctions

Notice - notice of motion to strike 2-27-19 8:30 am dept p

10/15/2018: Notice - notice of motion to strike 2-27-19 8:30 am dept p

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel -

7/30/2018: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel -

132 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/17/2021
  • Hearing03/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Case Managem...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketStatement of the Case; Filed by COREY LARGE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketReply (in further support of Motion for Judgment On the Pleadings); Filed by ALAN PAO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by TUNNEL POST, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings); Filed by COREY LARGE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by COREY LARGE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
222 More Docket Entries
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by TUNNEL POST, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketDeclaration (Of Demurring Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketDeclaration (IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by JACK LUU (Defendant); ALAN PAO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by BUTLER BAY ENTERPRISES LTD (Plaintiff); COREY LARGE (Plaintiff); JODY LARGE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC129035    Hearing Date: January 06, 2021    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Corey Large v. Tunnel Post, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: SC129035

SUBJECT: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to CCP § 438

HEARING DATE: 1/6/2021

BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2018, the Court granted Defendants Tunnel Post, Inc., Alan Pao, and Jack Luu’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on a statute of limitations defense, along with leave to amend. (See 08/14/2018 Minute Order.) On September 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint containing causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) promissory fraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) unfair business practices. Defendants filed a demurrer to the FAC and the Court overruled the demurrer. (See 4/16/2019 Minute Order.) On January 29, 2020, the Court signed a stipulation and order allowing Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint (SAC). On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a SAC alleging causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) promissory fraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) unfair business practices, (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and (6) violation of penal code section 496(a).

On August 24, 2020, Defendants Tunnel Post, Inc., Alan Pao, Jack Luu, and Digital Compliance Group, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the alleged claims are time-bared by the statute of limitations.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings “may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.” (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [citing McCutchen v. City of Montclair (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144].) “Like a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be addressed to the pleading as a whole or to separate counts. If addressed to the pleading as a whole, the motion must be denied if even one count is good. (See Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840, 850, 168 P.2d 5.) If addressed to separate counts, the motion may be granted as to some counts and denied as to others. (See Steiner v. Rowley (Heredia v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1345, 1358.)

The standard for granting “a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321[quoting Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216].) “All allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.” (Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313; Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 438(c)(1) provides that a motion for judgment on the pleadings may only be made on one of the following grounds: . . . (B) If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist: (i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint; (ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(B).) Per California Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a), “[b]efore filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings . . . for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a).)

REQUEST JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of five documents, Exhibits 1 – 5. Exhibits 1 – 3 are court records in this case, specifically the moving papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the demurrer to the FAC, and are judicially noticeable. Exhibit 4 is this Court’s order on the demurrer to the FAC. Exhibit 5 is the notice of this Court’s order on the demurrer. These documents are judicially noticeable; therefore, the court grants judicial notice.

ANALYSIS

Meet and confer

Defendant filed a meet and confer declaration explaining that Plaintiff failed to respond to meet and confer request of Defendant. (See Cabanday Decl. ¶2 )

Merits

Defendants Tunnel Post, Inc., Alan Pao, Jack Luu, and Digital Compliance Group, Inc. (“Defendants”) bring forth this motion “on the grounds that the complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and the alleged claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations.” (See Notice at 2:6-8.) Since the notice of motion is on the entire complaint and not on individual causes of action, the motion must be denied if even one cause pf action is viable. (Heredia v. Farmers Ins. Exchange Lord v. Garland

Defendants argue that the SAC is time barred because Plaintiff Corey Large alleged a single transaction of fraud starting in 2004 and continuing to 2015. Defendants argue that the statute of limitations ran in 2005. (See Mot. at 4:5-11, 7:28-9:14.) In opposition, Large argues that Defendants made the same arguments in support of their demurrer to the FAC. When the defendants demurred to the FAC, Defendants argued that the complaint was barred on statute of limitations grounds. (See RJN Ex. 1 at 2– 3, 8 – 10.)

A motion for judgment on the pleadings can be made even though “[t]he moving party has already demurred to the complaint or answer, as the case may be, on the same grounds as is the basis for the motion provided for in this section and the demurrer has been overruled, provided that there has been a material change in applicable case law or statute since the ruling on the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 [emphasis added]; Yancey v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 558, 562 fn.1) Here, Defendants are rearguing the same statute of limitations issue that was previously raised in the demurrer (as well as a previous motion for judgment on the pleadings). Defendants attempt to cast the issue as one of breach of oral contract instead of fraud as pled in the SAC. Plaintiff has not plead a breach of oral contract and Defendants have not pointed to allegations showing all of the elements of an alleged breach of oral contract. Defendants also argue that there is no fiduciary duty because Plaintiff is not a shareholder. Plaintiff has plead facts alleging that he is a shareholder, and the Court treats these facts as true for the purpose of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, much as the Court treated as true for the purpose of the demurrer to the FAC.

The Court has previously ruled that Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to toll the statute of limitations as well as that Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to give rise to a fiduciary duty. Since Defendants have not shown that the fraud claims are barred based on the statute of limitations, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

Case Number: SC129035    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Corey Large, et al. v. Tunnel Post, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: SC129035

SUBJECT: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

MOTION

On April 20, 2020 Counsel for Plaintiff Corey Large filed a motion seeking to be relieved as counsel.

Legal Standard

The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (CRC Rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) “The [proposed] order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (CRC Rule 3.1362(e) (emphasis added).)

The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (CRC Rule 3.1362(d).) The required forms may be served “by personal service, electronic service, or mail.” (CRC Rule 3.1362(d).) In addition, “[i]f the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” (CRC Rule 3.1362(d)(2).) Furthermore, as used in CRC Rule 3.162, “‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current . . ..’” (CRC Rule 3.1362(d).)

ANALYSIS

Attorney Steven T. Lowe of Lowe & Associates (“Counsel”) for Defendant seeks to be relieved as counsel. Here, Counsel for Plaintiff has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order).

Counsel notes that the client has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship for failure to pay fees. (Lowe Decl., MC-052, item 2.) Counsel seeks to withdraw due to this breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. (Id.) The motion is GRANTED.