This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/22/2020 at 17:37:00 (UTC).

LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC VS WEI BIAO HE

Case Summary

On 03/05/2018 LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against WEI BIAO HE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A., OKI, DAN THOMAS, DAN THOMAS OKI and GLORIA WHITE-BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0093

  • Filing Date:

    03/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

OKI, DAN THOMAS

DAN THOMAS OKI

GLORIA WHITE-BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC

LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC.

Defendants and Not Classified By Court

HE DARYL

HE DARYL HE

HE WEI BIAO

HE WEN D.

HE WEN DA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LAM JAMES D.

LAM JAMES PHI DAO

Defendant Attorneys

NYE ESQ. GARY A.

CARMAN DAVID A

NYE GARY ALAN

CARMAN DAVID ALAN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

10/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

3/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE FROM MARCH 21, 2019 TO MARCH 29, 2019

3/19/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE FROM MARCH 21, 2019 TO MARCH 29, 2019

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/14/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Substitution of Attorney

1/24/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Case Management Statement

1/31/2019: Case Management Statement

Notice - Notice Notice of Withdrawal of Motion

1/31/2019: Notice - Notice Notice of Withdrawal of Motion

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/18/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/5/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/6/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Other - - Other - CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/9/2018: Other - - Other - CIVIL DEPOSIT

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

3/14/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

3/15/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

Answer

4/23/2018: Answer

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

6/7/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/7/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Case Management Statement -

7/24/2018: Case Management Statement -

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/10/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/02/2020
  • Hearing04/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department J at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference Date from March 21, 2019 to March 29, 2019); Filed by LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by DARYL HE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Protective Order) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 03/13/2018
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department O; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-03-13 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketOther - (CIVIL DEPOSIT); Filed by LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC070093    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Wednesday, February 24, 2021

NOTICE: OK

RE: Logistics Cargo Concept Inc. v. He, et al. (KC070093)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc.’s MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN IMMUNITY

ORDER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING DEFENDANT

DARYL WEN HE FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL TO MATTERS WHERE THE

PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION HAS BEEN ASSERTED

Responding Party: Defendant, Daryl Wen He

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc.’s Motion for Issuance of an Immunity Order is DENIED. Plaintiff’s alternative request for an order precluding He from testifying at trial to matters where the privilege against self-incrimination has been asserted is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

Background

Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: In around September 2015, Defendant Daryl Wen He aka Wen Da He aka Wen D He (“Daryl”) began working for Plaintiff as a sales representative. Plaintiff and Daryl had a written agreement in which Daryl would receive a 50% profit share of the business he obtained. Instead of having his customers make payments directly to Plaintiff, Daryl diverted the proceeds from his sales to himself or to another business or person under his control. On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Bill He (erroneously sued as Wei Biao He), Daryl and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

  2. Fraud

  3. Accounting

The Final Status Conference is set for January 3, 2022. Trial is set for January 11, 2022.

Legal Standard

“[A] witness who refuses to answer questions on the ground of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination may nevertheless be compelled to answer if granted immunity against prosecutorial use of the answer or of evidence derived from the answer in a subsequent criminal proceeding against the witness.” (Daly v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 132, 142-143.) A private litigant seeking such an order must provide notice to “the prosecutors most likely to be interested.” (Id. at 149.) Upon receiving such notice, the relevant prosecuting authority may object to the grant of immunity by filing a declaration indicating the prosecutor is “familiar with the notice and has reasonable grounds to believe that the proposed grant of immunity might unduly hamper the prosecution of a criminal proceeding.” (Id. at 148 [emphasis theirs].) Once lodged, the prosecutor’s objection and declaration “conclusively establish[es] that an immunity order as described in the notice cannot be issued” and the court “cannot require the objecting prosecutor to amplify or justify the submitted declaration nor undertake to assess the nature or degree of the impact the immunity grant would have upon prosecutorial functions.” (Id.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court for an order issuing an immunity order against the use of He’s admissions, or of evidence derived from such answers, in any criminal proceeding against him; in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order precluding He from testifying at trial to matters previously claimed as privileged.

At the outset, Plaintiff acknowledges that Plaintiff’s request for an immunity order “is now moot and/or must be denied by the Court,” because the United States Attorney’s Office filed its objection on February 9, 2021. (Reply, 2:2-5.) This request, then, is summarily denied.

The court determines that Plaintiff’s alternative request is premature at this juncture. In Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, petitioners sought to depose certain security guard defendants who were being investigated by the United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The security guards, in response, moved the trial court for a protective order precluding their depositions, or staying them until the criminal statute of limitations expired. Petitioners opposed the motion and asked the trial court by a mandamus petition to prohibit the security guards from testifying at trial to matters about which they might, during deposition, invoke their privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court denied both the security guards’ motion and petitioner’s petition. Petitioners than sought a writ of mandate to direct the trial court to preclude the security guards from testifying at trial to matters about which the security guards might during deposition invoke their privilege. The Second District Court of appeal denied the writ petition without prejudice; in doing so, the court observed that “court have devised a number of procedures designed to accommodate the specific circumstances of the case. One accommodation is to stay the civil proceeding until disposition of the related criminal prosecution. Another possibility is to allow the civil defendant to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, even if doing so may limit the defendant’s ability to put on a defense. Other accommodations have included conferring an immunity on the party invoking the privilege, or precluding a litigant who claims the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in discovery from waiving the privilege and testifying at trial to matters upon which the privilege had been asserted. Each of these procedural tools is devised based on the circumstances of the particular case.” (Id. at 307-308.) The court determined that, under the circumstances, the security guards’ request for a protective order and petitioners’ request for testimony preclusion were premature, inasmuch as the depositions had not yet occurred. The court suggested that, on remand, the trial court could, inter alia, “fashion an order requiring the security guards, if they choose to testify at trial to matters covered by the previously invoked privilege, to immediately notify the court and petitioners of their waiver. The deadline for waiving the privilege could be set as late as, for instance, 10 days before trial. Or the court could impose an irrevocable deadline, for example four weeks before trial beyond which the security guards could not waive the privilege absent a showing of exigent circumstances. Upon notice of the security guard’s waiver, the court could stay the proceeding for the purpose of allowing petitioners to depose the w security guards about topics covered by their exercise of the privilege during discovery. Petitioners should also be permitted to conduct any ancillary discovery which develops during the further depositions.” (Id. at 310.)

Here, trial is set for January 11, 2022. As He points out, between now and then, developments bearing on He’s invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination could occur. The court determines that this issue is more properly addressed as a motion in limine; accordingly, Plaintiff’s alternative request is denied without prejudice.

Case Number: KC070093    Hearing Date: August 11, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Tuesday, August 11, 2020

NOTICE: OK[1]

RE: Logistics Cargo Concept Inc. v. He, et al. (KC070093)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc.’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET 1)

Responding Party: Defendant, Daryl Wen He

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set 1) is DENIED. Sanctions are declined.

Background

Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: In around September 2015, Defendant Daryl Wen He aka Wen Da He aka Wen D He (“Daryl”) began working for Plaintiff as a sales representative. Plaintiff and Daryl had a written agreement in which Daryl would receive a 50% profit share of the business he obtained. Instead of having his customers make payments directly to Plaintiff, Daryl diverted the proceeds from his sales to himself or to another business or person under his control. On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Bill He (erroneously sued as Wei Biao He), Daryl and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

  2. Fraud

  3. Accounting

A Case Management Conference is set for August 11, 2020.

Legal Standard

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories if the propounding party deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court (“CRC”), the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)

Notice of the motion must be provided within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for admissions, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make it unjust to impose sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Daryl to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, Nos. 18, 69, 72-75, 83, 91, 93, 95, 99 and 100. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Daryl and his counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,011.00.

Merits

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Daryl. (Lam Decl., ¶3.) Daryl provided initial responses dated September 9, 2018. (Id., ¶4.) Counsel met and conferred via communications dated April 8, 2019 and July 22, 2019. (Id., ¶¶10-11, Exhs. 1 & 2.) Daryl subsequently provided further responses dated December 7, 2019. (Id., ¶5.) Counsel met and conferred via communications dated December 30, 2019, March 16, 2020 and April 13, 2020. (Id., ¶¶12-14, Exhs. 3-5.) Plaintiff represents that the parties agreed in writing that Plaintiff had up to and including April 30, 2020 to file and serve the motion. (Id., p. 2, fn. 1.) The court determines that Plaintiff has made a good faith attempt to meet and confer.

The single remaining dispute between the parties regarding the requests in issue is whether, because the responses use the language “to the best of my recollection,” they are incomplete or evasive.

At the outset, the court summarily denies the motion as to No. 69, inasmuch as Plaintiff has failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1345(c)(1) or Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2). The text of No. 69 is not set forth in the separate statement, nor is there a “concise outline” of the request. Plaintiff has not attached the subject discovery requests or responses.

“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

No. 18 asks Daryl to describe all the reasons why he believes he did not fail to do something that the contract between himself and Plaintiff required him to do. Daryl responded that, to the best of his recollection, he did everything that the contract required him to do. This response demonstrates the source of the information Daryl relied upon in responding (i.e., his own recollection), as well as the efforts he made to obtain the information (i.e., making his best efforts to recall). No further response is warranted.

No. 72 asks Daryl whether he listed Plaintiff’s name on any other application not previously identified. Daryl responded that, to the best of his recollection, he did not list Plaintiff’s name on any application not previously identified. This response is adequate for the reasons set forth above. No. 73 asks Daryl to describe every occasion in which he has listed Plaintiff’s name on any other application if his response to No. 72 is in the affirmative. No. 74 asks Daryl whether he notified Plaintiff each time that he was going to list its name on the application if his response to No. 72 is in the affirmative. No. 75 asks Daryl to describe the circumstances surrounding each notification he provided to Plaintiff is his response to No. 72 is in the affirmative. No further responses are warranted, due to Daryl’s response to No. 72. Further, Daryl has provided a declaration, wherein he attests, “I do not have, within my possession, custody, or control, any documents relating to any occasions when I may have listed the name of Logistics Cargo Concept Inc. (‘LCC’) on any application, whether a credit application or some other kind of application. To the best of my recollection, the only time I listed LCC’s name on any application, be it a credit application or some other kind of application, was in or about November 2017, when I listed LCC’s name on an application for credit with G&P Trucking Company, Inc.” (D. He Decl., ¶¶2-3.) No further responses are warranted.

No. 83 asks Daryl to identify all tangible things he used that would contain electronically stored information (“ESI”) with regard to any contract between him and Plaintiff. Daryl responded that, to the best of his recollection, the only tangible things that he has used that would contain ESI regarding any contract between himself and LLC are his computer and his cell phone. Again, this response demonstrates the source of the information Daryl relied upon in responding (i.e., his own recollection), as well as the efforts he made to obtain the information (i.e., making his best efforts to recall). No further response is warranted.

No. 91 asks Daryl whether, since September 2015, he has conducted any business with Leader Expedite. Daryl responded affirmatively, but stated that, to the best of his recollection, such business was never conducted in his individual capacity and that all business conducted was as an agent for his employer. This response is full and complete. No further response is warranted. Daryl’s similar responses to No. 93 (i.e., which asked Daryl if, since September 2015, he has had any business communications with George Ho), No. 95 (i.e., which asked Daryl if, since September 2015, he has conducted any business with George Ho), No. 99 (i.e., which asked Daryl if, since September 2015, he has conducted any business with ISY1 LLC) and No. 100 (i.e., which asked Daryl, in the event he answered No. 99 in the affirmative, to describe all the business Daryl has conducted with ISY1 LLC since September 2015), are adequate for the same reasons as No. 91. Further, Daryl has stated in his accompanying declaration that, “I used to be employed by ISY1 LLC (‘ISY1’), but I no longer work for ISY1. I worked for ISY1 from in or about 2015, until in or about 2018. I have not worked for ISY1 at any other time. I do not have, within my possession, custody, or control. Any documents evidencing that I ever did business with ISY1, other than in the context of an employer-employee relationship.” (D. He Decl., ¶¶4-5.) No further responses are warranted.

The motion is denied in full.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions, jointly and severally against Daryl and his counsel, in the amount of $2,011.00 [calculated as follows: 1 hour meeting and conferring, plus 3 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour reviewing opposition and preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $325.00/hour, plus $61.65 filing fee]. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is declined, based upon the ruling on the motion. Daryl does not seek sanctions in his opposition.


[1] The motion was filed and email-served on April 30, 2020 and originally set for hearing on June 8, 2020. On May 4, 2020, a “Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations” was filed, wherein the court, on its own motion, continued the June 4, 2020 hearing to August 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.; all counsel were provided notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer JAMES D LAM