On 11/06/2017 NANTONG RUNTEY DYEING PRINTING CO ,LTD filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DAISY FIELD USA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
RALPH C. HOFER
NANTONG RUNTEY DYEING & PRINTING CO. LTD.
CANJOY LINENS INC.
LIU JIA AN INDIVIDUAL
ZONG WEN JUN; AN INDIVIDUAL
DAISY FIELD USA INC.
ZONG WEN JUN AN INDIVIDUAL
NANTONG RUNTEY DYEING & PRINTING CO. LTD.
DAISY FIELD USA INC.
WANG TOMMY SF
WANG IP LAW GROUP P.C.
WANG SONGFONG TOMMY
ARENT FOX LLP
GROSS KENNETH I.
BROPHY GARY DON
SHAMBAUGH THOMAS DIETRICH
BROPHY GARY DON
4/12/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIA...)
3/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)
11/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE DAISY FIELD USA, INC.' SECOND AME...)
11/7/2019: Reply - REPLY CANJOY LINEN'S INC. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DAISY FIELD USA, INC.'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MEDIATION AND DISCOVERY; TRIAL SETTING C...)
11/6/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference
11/20/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REQUEST
12/12/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS
2/8/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION
2/15/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REPLY
4/16/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
8/17/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
8/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE
11/13/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
Hearing08/30/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing08/19/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing07/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Post-Settlement Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/30/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department STL-E at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; MSC TimeslotRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Mandatory Settlement Conference) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Mandatory Settlement Conference; Tria...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Status Conference (Re Mandatory Settlement Conference Schedule) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest (FOR COPIES FOR COMPLAINT AND CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET- 14 PAGES ); Filed by Interested PartyRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest; Filed by Interested PartyRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil CaseRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED )Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of OSC)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC067576 Hearing Date: November 15, 2019 Dept: NCD
Case No: EC 067576 Trial Date: None Set
Case Name: Nantong Runtey Dyeing and Printing Co., Ltd. v. Daisy Field USA, et al.
MOTION TO STRIKE
Moving Party: Cross-Defendant Canjoy Linens, Inc.
Responding Party: Cross-Complainant Daisy Field USA
Pleading filed on: June 11, 2019 Motion filed on: September 6, 2019
Pleading served on: June 11, 2019, mail within 30 days?: No
Strike Second Amended Cross-Complaint
CAUSES OF ACTION: from Second Amended Cross-Complaint
1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
2) Unfair Business Practices
4) Common Counts—Account Stated
5) Common Counts—Open Book Account
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiff Nantong Runtey Dyeing and Printing alleges that it is a large manufacturer of high quality futon mattresses, comforters and bedding, and that in April of 2014 it entered into a business relationship whereby plaintiff began manufacturing and providing its products to defendants in California. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties, plaintiff shipped products to defendant Daisy Fields USA, and Daisy would arrange for the products to be distributed between itself and defendant Canjoy Linens. The pleading alleges that Canjoy Linens also manages Daisy’s accounts and issues payments on behalf of Daisy. Defendant Jai Liu is alleged to be the owner, managing agent and alter ego of Daisy, and defendant Wen Jun Zong is alleged to be the owner, managing agent and alter ego of Canjoy Linens.
Plaintiff alleges that in a series of orders placed, purchase orders and invoices from July of 2014 to August of 2014, plaintiff issued invoices for orders placed by defendants in the total amount of $212,728.30, but defendants have only remitted partial payments to plaintiff in a sum totaling $49,578.84. Plaintiff alleges that despite correspondence attempting to collect the sum and defendants’ promises to make payments by specific dates, defendants have failed to pay the outstanding balance. The complaint also alleges that defendant made false representations to plaintiff that they would timely pay for the orders placed, when they knew that they were unable to pay for the orders.
Defendant Daisy Fields USA, Inc. has filed a cross-complaint alleging that plaintiff Nantong, as cross-defendant, interfered with an oral agreement between cross-defendant Daisy Fields and Canjoy Linens, pursuant to which Daisy Fields would serve as a middleman and order goods from various suppliers in China, including Nantong, for delivery to and purchase by Canjoy in the United States, and pay freight and duty charges, in exchange for payment of a commission to Daisy Fields. The SACC alleges that Nantong was aware of the agreement, and intentionally interfered with it by negotiating directly for the sale and purchase of goods by Canjoy, allowing Canjoy to obtain the same products from Nantong without payment Daisy Field’s commission.
The file shows that on September 13, 2019, the court heard a demurrer to the first and second causes of action of the Second Amended Cross-Complaint brought by cross-defendant Nantong, which was overruled.
Under CCP§ 436:
“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to CCP § 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:…
(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”
Under CCP §435, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to strike “within the time allowed to respond to a pleading…”
Under CCP §430.40, the time permitted to demur to a complaint is “within 30 days after service of the complaint…”
CRC Rule 3.1322 (b) provides: “A notice of motion to strike must be given within the time allowed to plead…”
Here, the pleading was served on counsel for moving party by mail on June 11, 2019. This date is acknowledged in the moving papers. Permitting an additional five days for service of the pleading by mail, a response to the pleading was due by July 16, 2019. The motion was not served and filed until September 6, 2019, nearly seven weeks late.
CRC Rule 3.110(d) provides:
“The parties may stipulate without leave of court to one 15-day extension beyond the 30-day time period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint.”
Even if this pleading is considered the initial pleading as to moving cross-defendant, the permitted fifteen-day period of extension expired a month before the motion was filed. The motion is denied as untimely.
Cross-Defendant Canjoy Linens argues that the SACC should be stricken as to Canjoy Linens because cross-complainant Daisy Fields failed to obtain leave of court prior to filing its SACC.
Canjoy argues that Daisy Fields filed its original cross-complaint in November of 2018, but did not name Canjoy, and on December 27, 2018 filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, again naming as cross-defendant only Nantong. On June 11, 2019, Daisy Fields filed its SACC asserting new allegations and causes of action and for the first time naming Canjoy as a cross-defendant. Canjoy argues that Daisy Fields was required to obtain leave of court prior to filing its Second Amended Cross-Complaint, as Nantong had already filed an answer, cross-complainant had already filed an amendment to the original pleading as a matter of course, and the SACC asserted new and different claims against a new party.
As set forth above, under CCP section 436, the court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion:
“(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state...”
CCP § 472 provides that “any pleading may be amended once by the party of course, and without costs, at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after demurrer and before the trial of the issue of law thereon.”
Cross-defendant’s argument is that the pleading had already been amended once of course, and that since a co-defendant had filed an answer, cross-complainant was no longer permitted leave to amend once of course.
The opposition argues that there was no pleading by Daisy Fields against Canjoy until the SACC, so it had not answered, and cross-defendant was entitled to amend its cross-complaint once of course against that cross-defendant.
The pleading had already been amended once of course here, however, and it would appear that leave to amend would have been required.
Moreover, to the extent cross-complainant seeks to have the SACC treated as the initial pleading as to the moving cross-defendant, it would be untimely.
Under CCP § 428.50:
“(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.
(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.
(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”
The file shows that a trial date in this matter was set at a CMC on January 31, 2019. Accordingly, under CCP § 428.50, leave of court was required to file a cross-complaint against moving defendant.
The court could grant the motion and strike the pleading, without prejudice to cross-defendant bringing a motion for leave to file the pleading. This would not appear to be the most efficient use of judicial or other resources. Hence, the court denies the motion as untimely and permits the pleading to stand.
Canjoy Linens Inc.’s Motion to Strike Daisy Field USA, Inc.’s Second Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED as untimely under CCP section 435, which states that a party may serve and file a motion to strike “within the time allowed to respond to a pleading.” Under CCP section 421.20(a)(3), a response to the complaint is due within 30 days after summons is served upon the party. Likewise, under CCP section 430.40, the time permitted to file a demurrer to a complaint is “within 30 days after the service of the complaint…” Here, the pleading was served on June 11, 2019, by mail. This motion was weeks late. To the extent this motion is an appeal to the court to strike portions of the complaint on its own motion, the court declines to do so.
Ten days to answer.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases