This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/24/2019 at 03:28:53 (UTC).

JORDAN MATHEW VS REDWOOD GOLD GROUP INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/09/2017 JORDAN MATHEW filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against REDWOOD GOLD GROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4649

  • Filing Date:

    06/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

MATHEW JORDAN

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

REDWOOD GOLD GROUP INC.

KENNEDY KATRINA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

BARUCH JOEL W. ESQ.

BARUCH JOEL WILLIAM ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

SCULLY THOMAS HENRY

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

FLYNN CYNTHIA ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6/9/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

7/21/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Unknown

7/21/2017: Unknown

Unknown

7/31/2017: Unknown

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7/31/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF REDWOOD GOLD GROUP, INC. FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:

7/31/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF REDWOOD GOLD GROUP, INC. FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:

ANSWER OF JORDAN MATHEW TO REDWOOD GOLD GROUP'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/31/2017: ANSWER OF JORDAN MATHEW TO REDWOOD GOLD GROUP'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

10/6/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

10/6/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

3/26/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

Motion to Continue

10/25/2018: Motion to Continue

Exhibit List

11/19/2018: Exhibit List

Jury Instructions

11/19/2018: Jury Instructions

Witness List

11/19/2018: Witness List

Minute Order

11/20/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/26/2018: Minute Order

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/11/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketOrder (Ruling Re: Defendant Katrina Kennedy's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT JORDAN MATHEW?S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KATRINA KENNEDY?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by Jordan Mathew (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Katrina Kennedy (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Katrina Kennedy (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 1, Samantha Jessner, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Court Order Re Reassignment to Independent Calendar Court)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment to Independent Calendar Court) of 11/28/2018); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Jordan Mathew (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Jordan Mathew (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jordan Mathew (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jordan Mathew (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jordan Mathew (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: ****4649 Hearing Date: July 8, 2021 Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

JORDAN MATHEW;

Plaintiff,

v.

REDWOOD GOLD GROUP, INC.

Defendant.

Case No.: ****4649

Hearing Date: July 8, 2021

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

plaintiff/cross-defendant jordan matthew’s motion to dismiss redwood gold group, inc.’s cROSs-complaint for lack of standing

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jordan Matthew’s Motion to Dismiss Redwood Gold Group, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint for Lack of Standing is DENIED.

Factual Background

This is a wage and hour action. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Jordan Matthew (“Mathew”) was hired by Defendant Katrina Kennedy (“Kennedy”) on November 1, 2015 as an employee of Kennedy’s sole proprietorship before Defendant Redwood Gold Group, Inc. (“Redwood” was incorporated in California on January 12, 2016. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Mathew was terminated on April 12, 2017. (Compl. ¶ 5.) The Complaint alleges that Mathew did not receive regular rest periods and meal periods, was misclassified as an independent contractor, never received an itemized paycheck, did not have taxes and social security withheld from his paycheck, was not paid overtime. (Compl. ¶ 8.)

On July 31, 2017, Redwood filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC”) against Mathew for computer fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. The XC alleges that Mathew used the corporate credit card to purchase personal internet domain names for himself, without authorization. (XC ¶ 10.) Mathew also locked Redwood’s network and refused to release company passwords to Redwood until the police intervened. (XC ¶ 11.) The XC also alleges that Mathew purchased a Blackblaze account with the company credit card, without authorization, and used this account to unlawfully copy and steal Redwood’s confidential data and intellectual property about precious metals IRA and private storage gold IRA. (XC ¶ 13.) Mathew also locked Redwood out of its GoDaddy domain account. (XC ¶ 15.)

procedural history

On June 9, 2017, Mathew filed the Complaint, alleging five causes of action:

  1. Failure to pay Plaintiff all wages, commissions, and benefits when due

  2. Failure to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation

  3. Failure to pay Plaintiff for rest periods and meal breaks

  4. Failure to furnish accurate wage statements and failure to keep accurate records

  5. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

On July 31, 2017, Redwood filed the XC, alleging four causes of action:

  1. Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC ;; 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4))

  2. Computer data access and fraud act (Penal Code ; 502)

  3. Conversion

  4. Breach of contract

On March 11, 2019, this Court granted Kennedy’s Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Complaint.

On August 5, 2020, this Court granted the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Redwood’s Counsel.

On April 8, 2021, Mathew filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.

No Opposition has been filed.

Discussion

  1. MOTION TO DISMISS

Mathew moves the Court to dismiss the cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.150 because Redwood lacks standing to sue. (Motion at p. 3.)

Civil Procedure section 583.150 states, “This chapter does not limit or affect the authority of a court to dismiss an action or impose other sanctions under a rule adopted by the court pursuant to Section 575.1 or by the Judicial Council pursuant to statute, or otherwise under inherent authority of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 583.150.) As held by the court in Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 31, 2007), section 583.150 has been interpreted to mean that “courts have the inherent authority to dismiss an action.” (Id. at 799.)

In this Motion, Mathew argues that because Redwood is a dissolved and/or inactive corporation that is no longer represented by counsel, Redwood may not prosecute or defend an action in this Court. (Motion at p. 3.) However, as the court held in Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, “Our Supreme Court has specifically stated that ‘a plea of lack of capacity of a corporation to maintain an action by reason of a suspension of corporate powers for nonpayment of its taxes is a plea in abatement which is not favored in law [and] is to be strictly construed’.” (Id. at 1604.) A plea in abatement “is a technical objection and must be pleaded specifically.” (Id.)

As addressed in Color-Vue, the issue before this Court is one of capacity, not standing. “Under California law, a corporation ordinarily has the capacity to sue.” (Tabarrejo v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 849, 861.) However, a suspended or dissolved corporation lacks this capacity. (Id.) Corporate incapacity is not a jurisdictional issue that deprives the court of jurisdiction over a case: “Corporate incapacity is nothing more than a legal disability, depriving the party of the right to come into court and represent its own interests. As such, lack of capacity is not a jurisdictional defect and is waived if not properly raised.” (Id. at 863.)

In this case, Mathew has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Cross-Complaint on the grounds of lack of standing. However, Mathew misstates the circumstances. There is no evidence of lack of standing, only a potential lack of capacity. As the Court held in The Rossdale Group, LLC v. Walton (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 936, “Where, as here, a suspension or other event causing a lack of capacity is claimed to have ‘occurred after the time to demur or answer ha[s] passed, [the parties claiming a lack of capacity] should ... move[ ] the court for leave to file an amended answer asserting the plea’.” (Id. at 943.) In The Rossdale Group, LLC, the court of appeal directed the trial court to enter an order denying the moving party’s motion to dismiss. (Id. at 946.) The court held that the Motion to Dismiss did not raise any standing or jurisdictional issues. (Id.)

The Rossdale Group, LLC, is instructive in this case. Here, as in The Rossdale Group, LLC, the moving party has filed a Motion to Dismiss where a demurrer or amended answer would be more appropriate, and the moving party has mischaracterized a question of capacity as a question of standing. Here, Mathew has presented a copy of a Secretary of State Certificate of Dissolution for Redwood filed on August 17, 2018. (Motion, Exh. B.) As an initial matter, Mathew has not authenticated this document such that this Court may take this exhibit as the sole evidence of Redwood’s dissolution. However, even if this Court were to take this exhibit as evidence of Redwood’s dissolution, Redwood’s lack of corporate powers does not raise an issue of standing but an issue of capacity. Therefore, this Motion to Dismiss is improper and this Court declines to dismiss the Cross-Complaint on grounds of a potential loss of capacity by Redwood.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss the Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

Date: July 8, 2021

______________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court

"


Case Number: ****4649    Hearing Date: August 05, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

JORDAN MATHEW;

Plaintiff,

v.

REDWOOD GOLD GROUP, INC.

Defendant.

Case No.: ****4649

Hearing Date: August 5, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

ATTORNEY THOMAS SCULLY’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

  1. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

    Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 284 states that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination” upon either consent of both client and attorney, or upon the order of the court under application of either the client of the attorney, after notice from one to the other. Cal. Rule of Court 3.1362 states the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code Civ. Proc. section 284. No memorandum is required, but the motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration stating why a motion has been brought instead of filing a consent (without compromising attorney-client confidentiality), (2) proof of service of the motion, and (3) all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. Additionally, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers.”

    The present motion is filed by Attorney Thomas Scully, counsel for Defendant Redwood Gold Group, Inc. The motion complies with the above requirements. No oppositions have been filed. The attorney declares that the Defendant corporation has been dissolved since mid-2018 and has failed to pay its attorney since the beginning of 2019 in violation of the attorney fee agreement and is not cooperating in a meaningful way with preparation for trial.

    Accordingly, Attorney Thomas Scully’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Redwood Gold Group, Inc. is GRANTED.

    Defendant’s Attorney to give notice.

Date: August 5, 2020

_____________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer FLYNN CYNTHIA