This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 13:21:12 (UTC).

UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC. VS RED BULL GLOBAL

Case Summary

On 12/01/2017 UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RED BULL GLOBAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk 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:

    ****8496

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

UNITED RENTAL (NORTH AMERICA) INC.

UNITED RENTAL NORTH AMERICA INC.

Defendants

RED BULL GLOBAL RALLYCROSS ALP

DYNE COLIN

ALPHA GRP INC. ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN

ALP RED BULL GLOBAL RALLYCROSS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GOODMAN HOWARD

Defendant Attorneys

GERSH JEFFREY F.

MALINGAGIO PAUL SEBASTIAN

DWORSKY DAVID ELLIOTT

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON

 

Court Documents

Declaration

7/23/2018: Declaration

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

7/23/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Motion to Quash

7/23/2018: Motion to Quash

Complaint

9/10/2018: Complaint

Answer

10/5/2018: Answer

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/26/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Reply

11/8/2018: Reply

Supplemental Declaration

11/8/2018: Supplemental Declaration

Minute Order

11/16/2018: Minute Order

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

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/22/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department P; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (to Continue Trial Date); Filed by UNITED RENTAL (NORTH AMERICA) INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • at 08:29 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion to Quash ((Legacy)) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Minute Order ((Defendant Colin Dyne's Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Se...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • Reply (Brief in Support of his Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Third Party Bank of the West)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • Supplemental Declaration (of David Dworsky in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena served on Third Party Bank of the West and Reply Brief)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2018
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities (in Opposition to Motion to Quash); Filed by UNITED RENTAL (NORTH AMERICA) INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
63 More Docket Entries
  • 03/29/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by COLIN DYNE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Answer to Complaint Filed (ALPHA GRP, INC. A DELAWARE CORP. DBA RED BULL GLOBAL RALLYCROSS erroneously sued herein as RED BULL GLOBAL RALLYCROSS ALP. ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Answer; Filed by RED BULL GLOBAL RALLYCROSS ALP (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by UNITED RENTAL (NORTH AMERICA) INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by UNITED RENTAL (NORTH AMERICA) INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by UNITED RENTAL (NORTH AMERICA) INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128496    Hearing Date: January 26, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

United Rentals, Inc. v. Red Bull Global et al., Case No. SC128496

Hearing Date January 20, 2021

Defendant Dyne’s Motion for Summary Adjudication – cont’d. from 9/16/20

Plaintiff alleges defendant Alpha GRP, Inc. dba Red Bull Global Rallycross ALP (“Red Bull”) failed to pay money owed under a written credit application. Plaintiff alleges Red Bull’s former CEO defendant Dyne personally guaranteed the loan. Defendant Dyne moves for summary adjudication, arguing he did not sign the credit agreement or authorize anyone to sign it on his behalf. On September 16, 2020 the court continued the hearing to allow plaintiff to depose Dyne.

Evidentiary Objections: OVERRULED.

Analysis

To obtain summary judgment, “all that the defendant need do is to show that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action.” See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853; see also Mitchell v. United National Ins. Co. (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 457. “Although he remains free to do so, the defendant need not himself conclusively negate any such element.” Ibid. “Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or as to a defense to the cause of action. If the plaintiff does not make such a showing, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate.” See Mitchell, at 467. Until defendant meets this evidentiary burden, plaintiff has no burden to present evidence showing a triable issue of fact. See Hagen v. Hickenbottom (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 178; see also Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 940, citing Duckett v. Pistoresi Ambulance Service, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1533.

A party seeking to rely on an agreement including an electronic signature must provide evidence the signature was the act of the purported signer. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 840. An agent has authority to bind a principal when the principal “intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, allows the agent to believe” the agent possesses authority. Cal. Civ. Code §2316.

Dyne presents evidence he never signed the credit application and never conferred actual or ostensible authority on anyone else to sign it on his behalf. Def. sep. stmt. 1-3. In plaintiffs’ January 2020 responses to special interrogatories, plaintiff admitted it had no facts indicating Dyne signed or electronically submitted the agreement. Sep. stmt. 1-2. This meets defendant’s initial burden, which shifts to plaintiff to show a triable issue of fact.

Plaintiff argues defendant’s assistant Hope Korey signed the agreement and had ostensible authority to bind Dyne. Additionally, plaintiff argues that under equitable estoppel, when an agent negligently misrepresents the scope of her authority to a third party, the third party can rely on that representation, and the agent’s principal can be held liable for agreements formed by the agent, even if outside the scope of the agent’s actual authority. Lix v. Edwards (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 573. Plaintiff presents evidence indicating Dyne delegated some authority to Korey, and she may have been responsible for credit applications as Red Bull’s agent. Dyne depo., pp. 23:24 - 30:5. This creates a triable issue of fact. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA COURT CALL WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

Case Number: SC128496    Hearing Date: January 20, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

United Rentals, Inc. v. Red Bull Global et al., Case No. SC128496

Hearing Date January 20, 2021

Defendant Dyne’s Motion for Summary Adjudication – cont’d. from 9/16/20

Plaintiff alleges defendant Alpha GRP, Inc. dba Red Bull Global Rallycross ALP (“Red Bull”) failed to pay money owed under a written credit application. Plaintiff alleges Red Bull’s former CEO defendant Dyne personally guaranteed the loan. Defendant Dyne moves for summary adjudication, arguing he did not sign the credit agreement or authorize anyone to sign it on his behalf. On September 16, 2020 the court continued the hearing to allow plaintiff to depose Dyne.

Evidentiary Objections: OVERRULED.

Analysis

To obtain summary judgment, “all that the defendant need do is to show that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action.” See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853; see also Mitchell v. United National Ins. Co. (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 457. “Although he remains free to do so, the defendant need not himself conclusively negate any such element.” Ibid. “Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or as to a defense to the cause of action. If the plaintiff does not make such a showing, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate.” See Mitchell, at 467. Until defendant meets this evidentiary burden, plaintiff has no burden to present evidence showing a triable issue of fact. See Hagen v. Hickenbottom (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 178; see also Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 940, citing Duckett v. Pistoresi Ambulance Service, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1533.

A party seeking to rely on an agreement including an electronic signature must provide evidence the signature was the act of the purported signer. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 840. An agent has authority to bind a principal when the principal “intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, allows the agent to believe” the agent possesses authority. Cal. Civ. Code §2316.

Dyne presents evidence he never signed the credit application and never conferred actual or ostensible authority on anyone else to sign it on his behalf. Def. sep. stmt. 1-3. In plaintiffs’ January 2020 responses to special interrogatories, plaintiff admitted it had no facts indicating Dyne signed or electronically submitted the agreement. Sep. stmt. 1-2. This meets defendant’s initial burden, which shifts to plaintiff to show a triable issue of fact.

Plaintiff argues defendant’s assistant Hope Korey signed the agreement and had ostensible authority to bind Dyne. Additionally, plaintiff argues that under equitable estoppel, when an agent negligently misrepresents the scope of her authority to a third party, the third party can rely on that representation, and the agent’s principal can be held liable for agreements formed by the agent, even if outside the scope of the agent’s actual authority. Lix v. Edwards (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 573. Plaintiff presents evidence indicating Dyne delegated some authority to Korey, and she may have been responsible for credit applications as Red Bull’s agent. Dyne depo., pp. 23:24 - 30:5. This creates a triable issue of fact. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA COURT CALL.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Alpha Group US LLC f/k/a Auldey Toys of North America is a litigant

Latest cases where United Rentals, Inc, is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DWORSKY DAVID ELLIOTT

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GERSH JEFFREY F.