This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/27/2020 at 02:14:03 (UTC).

REUNITED, LLC VS. CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST INC.

Case Summary

On 05/30/2018 REUNITED, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CAPITAL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSING WEST INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9165

  • Filing Date:

    05/30/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

REUNITED LLC

Defendants

DOES 1-10

CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST INC.

CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING EAST INC. A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING GROUP INC. A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

GREENSPAN PAUL

CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING SOUTH INC. A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SHERMAN MICHAEL A.

ELAN NEIL H.

AKOPCHIKYAN KARINE

Defendant Attorneys

THOMAS F NOWLAND LAW OFFICES OF

NOWLAND THOMAS F

DESIDERIO JOSEPH FELIX

NOWLAND THOMAS

 

Court Documents

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/18/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE /RESCHEDULING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ...)

7/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE /RESCHEDULING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Order - ORDER TO JOINT STIPULATION TO DEFENDANT, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

10/1/2019: Order - ORDER TO JOINT STIPULATION TO DEFENDANT, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) OF PAUL GRKENSPAN TO REUNITED, LLC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/1/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) OF PAUL GRKENSPAN TO REUNITED, LLC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS, PAUL GREENSPAN, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING EAST INC., AND CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING SOUTH INC.S, MOTIONS TO QUASH

9/17/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS, PAUL GREENSPAN, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING EAST INC., AND CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING SOUTH INC.S, MOTIONS TO QUASH

Declaration - DECLARATION OF NEIL ELAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF, REUNITED, LLCS, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST, INC.S, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL I

9/6/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF NEIL ELAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF, REUNITED, LLCS, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST, INC.S, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL I

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING EAST INC. AND CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING SOUTH INC'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/19/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS, CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING EAST INC. AND CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING SOUTH INC'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

8/20/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SROGS, SET 1.

8/9/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SROGS, SET 1.

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL...)

4/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL...)

Case Management Statement

4/18/2019: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service by Mail

4/10/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PAUL GREENSPAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH

4/2/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PAUL GREENSPAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH

Notice of Case Management Conference

5/30/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

2/1/2019: Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/12/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

143 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2021
  • Hearing06/28/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • Hearing06/21/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Prosecute) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication (by plaintiff, Reunited, LLC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication by plaintiff, Reun...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by REUNITED, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by REUNITED, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST INC. (Defendant); Paul Greenspan (Defendant); CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING EAST INC., a New Jersey corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
187 More Docket Entries
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by CAPITAL LOGISTICS & WAREHOUSING WEST INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketDeclaration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketNotice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketNotice of Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketDeclaration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by REUNITED, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by REUNITED, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC029165    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: A

# 5. Reunited, LLC v. Capital Logistics & Warehousing West, Inc., et al.

Case No.: TC029165

Matter on calendar for: motion for summary adjudication

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiff Reunited, LLC, manufacturers and imports women’s apparel from overseas and sells the merchandise to U.S. retailers. Reunited contracted with defendant Capital Logistics & Warehousing West, Inc. (“Capital West”), to store Reunited’s goods and to fulfill Reunited’s purchase orders. Reunited started receiving complaints from its retailers that orders were missing merchandise, despite Capital West’s assurances and paperwork showing the merchandise had been delivered to common carriers. Upon inspection of Capital West’s warehouses, Reunited found much of the missing merchandise, and subsequently found its items being sold online by a third party. Reunited’s investigations allegedly induced Capital West to ship all Reunited’s merchandise out of its warehouse, including most of the missing goods for which Capital West had provided paperwork. Defendant Paul Greenspan is the director of Capital West and of defendant Capital Logistics & Warehousing Group, Inc. (“Capital Group”).

    The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

  1. Bailment;

  2. Fraud;

  3. Conversion;

  4. Breach of written contract;

  5. Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

  6. Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and

  7. Negligence

    Reunited now moves for summary adjudication on whether Greenspan has personal liability under the contract. The motion is opposed.

    For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

  1. Standard

A “motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (C.C.P., § 437c(c).) "A moving party need only show it is entitled to the benefit of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence in order to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party to show there are triable issues of fact. [Security Pac. Nat. Bank v. Associated Motor Sales (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 171, 178–179.]" (Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 635, 644.) Once the moving party has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the opposing party cannot rest upon the mere allegations of the pleadings but must present admissible evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 844.) “In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom… and must view such evidence… in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Id. at 844-845; C.C.P., § 437c(p)(2).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (C.C.P., § 437c(f)(1).) 

  1. Analysis

    1. Summary adjudication on the issue of duty

      Reunited seeks summary adjudication as to whether Greenspan is a party to the contract and/or is personally liable under the contract, and that he does not have applicable affirmative defenses against his personal liability. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(f)(1) states: “A party may move for summary adjudication as to . . . one or more issues of duty, if that party contends . . . that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.” “A plaintiff may seek summary adjudication on the existence or nonexistence of a contractual duty . . . . [Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Associates (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 508, 519.]” (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 224.) Whether Greenspan is personally a party to the contract is a prerequisite to a finding that he is liable under the contract. Further, the lack of affirmative defenses is a prerequisite to summary adjudication. In effect, Reunited’s motion seeks adjudication on the single issue of duty, which this Court may address under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(f)(1).

    2. Reunited’s initial burden

      1. Agent liability

“ ‘In order for an agent to avoid personal liability on a contract negotiated in his principal’s behalf, he must disclose not only that he is an agent but also the identity of his principal, regardless of whether the third person might have known that the agent was acting in a representative capacity.’ [Citation.]” (W.W. Leasing Unlimited v. Commercial Standard Title Ins., Co. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 792, 795.) The principal’s trade name is insufficient. (Id. at 796.) Personal liability cannot be avoided if the fact of agency is revealed but the true name and corporate status of the principal is not. (G.W. Andersen Construction Co. v. Mars Sales (1985) 164 Cal.App.3rd 326, 332.)

Reunited argues that Greenspan ostensibly entered into the contract on behalf of Capital Logistics and Warehousing, Inc. However, this entity did not exist at the time. The actual principal allegedly was Capital Group. Reunited contends Greenspan failed to disclose his principal, and therefore is personally liable for the contract.

Reunited provides the following evidence:

The May 24, 2017 contract is not signed by Greenspan. (Decl. Elan, Exh. A.) Only Miguel Pina, Reunited’s apparent representative, and not Donald Kesselman, signed the document. (Ibid.) Evaluating the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the lack of a signature and a different negotiator raises a question of fact as to whether Capital Group, and Greenspan by extension, entered into the purported contract. Reunited has failed to meet its initial burden; summary adjudication must be denied.

Further, Greenspan submitted his own declaration stating that Exh. A was a non-binding term sheet. (Decl. Greenspan, ¶ 6.) He also provides various emails showing negotiation among himself, Pina, and Reunited employee Jennifer Rodriguez. (Decl. Greenspan, Exh. 6; Exh. 1.) This evidence also would create a triable issue of material fact as to whether Exh. A is a contract or part of a negotiation, and whether it is the same contract recalled by Kesselman.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for summary adjudication is denied.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: TC029165    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: A

# 8. Reunited v. Capital Logistics & Warehousing West, Inc., et al.

Case No.: TC029165

Matter on calendar for: Demurrer; Motion to Strike

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    This action arises from a breach of contract. Plaintiff Reunited, LLC, manufacturers and imports women’s apparel from overseas and sells its merchandise to U.S. retailers. Reunited contracted with defendant Capital Logistics & Warehousing West, Inc., to store Reunited’s goods and to fulfill Reunited’s purchase orders. Reunited started receiving complaints from its retailers that orders were missing merchandise; despite Capital’s assurances and proffered paperwork showing that the merchandise was delivered to common carriers. Upon inspection of Capital’s warehouses, Reunited found much of the missing merchandise and has subsequently found its items being sold by a third party online. Reunited’s investigations allegedly induced Capital to ship all Reunited’s merchandise out of its warehouse; including much of the missing goods which Capital had provided paperwork for.

    The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

  1. Bailment;

  2. Fraud;

  3. Conversion;

  4. Breach of written contract;

  5. Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

  6. Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and

  7. Negligence

    Defendant Paul Greenspan now demurs and moves to strike portions of the FAC. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered.

  1. Standard

    1. Demurrer

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609610.) Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

    1. Motion to Strike

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part of the pleading. (C.C.P., § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (C.C.P. § 437.) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of the pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (C.C.P., §§ 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Schultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) 

  1. Analysis

    1. Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of various documents filed in this action is granted.

    1. Alter-Ego Allegations

In ruling on the May 21, 2019 demurrers and accompanying motions, the Court determined the alter-ego allegations against Defendant Greenspan and found them sufficient. Defendant’s argument that the analysis should be different because he the alleged individual—Greenspan arguing against the alter-ego allegations versus one of the entities arguing against alter-ego—is unpersuasive and unsupported by the authority in the demurrer.

The demurrer as based on alter-ego is overruled.

    1. Bailment

A bailment is called a deposit within the Civil Code. It is defined as “[a] voluntary deposit [ ] made by one giving to another, with his consent, the possession of personal property to keep for the benefit of the former, or of a third party.” (Civ. Code, § 1814.) The FAC clearly outlines the required allegations for a bailment cause of action alongside agency allegations against the defendants. "[A] pleading of agency [is] an averment of ultimate fact. [Citation.]" (Skopp v. Weaver (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432, 437.) Defendant Greenspan’s argument that he was acting as a representative of his entity is unpersuasive because “an agent loses his or her protection when he is acting for his own benefit or advantage rather than solely on behalf of and at the discretion of his or her principal. [Citations.]” (Thornburg v. Superior Court (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 43, 52.) As alleged owner, Greenspan is alleged to have been working for his own benefit.

The demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled.

    1. Fraud

The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be pled with specificity. (Id. at 645.) This “necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means representations were tendered.” (Ibid.) The FAC clearly details the elements of fraud by alleging the misrepresentations made by Greenspan and Sunil Dhanraj relating to the care of Plaintiff’s items.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled.

    1. Causes of Action 3–7

The demurrer against the conversion cause of action is based on the insufficiency of the alter-ego allegations and the allegation of agency. The demurrer to these causes of action is overruled.

    1. Motion to Strike

The contract contains an attorneys’ fee provision which applies to both parties. (Civ. Code, § 1717(a).) As to punitive damages, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged its fraud cause of action. The Court previously addressed the same Penal Code arguments and found them unpersuasive.

The motion to strike is denied.

  1. Ruling

    The demurrer is overruled. The motion to strike is denied.

    Next dates:

    Notice: