Preview
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2014 INDEX NO. 2014EF1526 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2014 SUPREME COURT OF TIlE STATE OF NEW YORK INDEX # COUNTY OF ONONDAGA NIAGARA MOhAWK POWER CORPORATION SUMMONS d/b/a NATIONAL GRID, Plaintiffs Principal Place Plaintiff, of Business: 300 Erie Blvd W -against- Syracuse, NY 13202 MODERN IJEAT TREATING & FORGING, INC., The basis of venue designated is: Plaintiffs Defendant. principal place of business is in the County of Onondaga To the above named Defendant: YOU ARE HIEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York) and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Cairo, NY April 17, 2014 p & ASSOCIATES, PLLC .ttomeys for Plaintiff Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation TO: MODERN IIEAT TREATING d/b/a National Grid & FORGING, INC. 80 Birch Hill Drive 1112 Niagara St Cairo, NY 12413 Buffalo, NY 14213 Tel. No. 877-878-4169 By: Ilarold M. Birn, Esq. “You need not physically appear to serve an answer SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK INDEX # COUNTY OF ONONDAGA NIAGARA MO! IAWK POWER CORPORATION d/b/a NATIONAL GRID, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT -against- MODERN HEAT TREATING & FORGING. INC., Defendant. State of New York: County of Greene: ss:: Plaintiff,by its attorneys, P. Schneider and Associates, PLLC, complaining of the defendant, alleges: 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was and still isa domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York. 2. That at all limes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant was, and upon information and belief stillis,a domestic corporation doing business in the State of New York. 3. That at all times herein, plaintiff agreed to supply utility services to defendant and defendant agreed to pay for all services received. FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4. Plaintiff repeats, reilerales. and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs of the complaint numbered 1, 2 and 3 with the same force and effect as if herein set forth at length. 5. Thai pursuant to the agreement between the parties, plaintiff as Seller sold and furnished, and defendant as Purchaser purchased and used utility service from Seller, at 1112 Niagara St. Buffalo, NY 14213, through March 11,2014, for the agreed upon price of Forty Six Thousand Seven IJundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06). 6. That in consideration thereof defendant agreed to pay, and was obligated to pay plaintiff, the sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06) 7. That plaintiff sent defendant and defendant received invoices for the utility services. 8. That defendant retained the invoices without objection. 9. That demand has been made for the sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven I Tundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06) but no pad thereof has been paid. 10. That defendant has breached the agreement between the parties by failing to pay the agreed upon sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06) II. That as a result of the foregoing, there is justly due and owing to the plaintiff from the defendant, the sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06) with interest from March 11,2014. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 12. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs of the complaint numbered 1,2,3, 4,5,6, 7, 8,9, 10, and 11 with the same force and effect as if herein set forth at length. 13. That at all times herein and in each instance defendant was obligated pay for utility services sold and furnished by plaintiff to defendant at 1112 Niagara St, Buffalo, NY 14213. 14. That at all times herein and in each instance defendant consumed utility services furnished by plaintiff to defendant at 1112 Niagara St, Buffalo, NY. 15. That from, on or about, March 8,2012 through March 11,2014, plaintiff sold and furnished utility services to the defendant, all of which are more particularly set forth in Schedule “A” hereto annexed and made a part this complaint, numbering each item claimed together with the invoice for each item claimed and the agreed price of each item claimed and the amount paid on each item claimed and the amount due for each item claimed as prescribed by CPLR 3016(f), totaling the sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06). 16. That demand has been made for that sum, but no pan thereof has been paid and there is now due and owing the sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents (S46.766.06) 17. That as a result of the foregoing, there is justly due and owing to the plaintiff from the defendant, the sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven hundred Sixty’ Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06) with interest from March 11,2014. FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ofthe complaint numbered 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 with the same force and effect as if herein set forth at length. 19. That an account was taken and stated between the plaintiff and defendant which had a balance of Forty Six Thousand Seven hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06) due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff. 20. That a dispute does not exist between the parties as to the bills rendered, the amount paid and the balance due. 21. That no part of that sum of Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Six Cents ($46,766.06) has been paid. although duly demanded. WhEREFORE, the plaintiff Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation dibia National Grid demands judgment against the defendant, Modern heat Treating & Forging, Inc.: a. On the First Cause of Action $46,766.06, with interest from March 11,2014, together with the costs and disbursem*nts of this action. b. On the Second Cause of Action $46,766.06 with interest from March 11,2014 together with the costs and disbursem*nts of this action. c. On the Third Cause of Action $46,766.06 with interest from March 11,2014, together with the costs and disbursem*nts of this action. Dated: Cairo, NY April 17, 2014 P. SCIINEIDER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Niagara Mohawk Power Corpontion djb/a National Grid 80 Birch Hill Drive Cairo, NY 12413 Tel. No. 877-8784169 By: harold M. Birn, Esq. TO: MODERN HEAT TREATING & FORGING, INC. 1112 Niagara St Buffalo, NY 14213 SCHEDULE ‘A’ Agreed Amount(s) Paid! Balance mv. # Billing Period Price Credit(s) applied Due 1 03/08/2012 -04/05/2012 54,015.32 51,521.15 pymt 52,494.17 2 04/05/2012 -05/08/2012 $3851.35 5100.00 pymt $2,000.00 pymt $1,000.00 pymt 5751.35 a 05/08/2012 - 06/11/2012 52,965,51 $3,085.50 pymt -$119.99 4 06/11/2012 - 07/11/2012 $4,045.51 $2,965.51 pymt -52,965.51 NG check 54,045.51 5 07/11/2012 - 08/09/2012 54,576.27 $28.95 pymt 52,500.00 pymt 51,000.00 pymt S1,000.00 pyrnt 547.32 6 08/09/2012 - 09/07/2012 53,646.05 5600.00 pymt 5600.00 ymt $500.00 Dymt 589.89 dep. lit. 5500.00 pymt $1,356.16 7 09/07/2012 - 10/08/2012 52,284.11 51,000.00 pyrn: 51,000.00 pymt 51,000,00 pymt 51,000.00 pymt -51,715.89 8 10/08/2012 - 11/07/2012 $3,052.13 5150.00 pymt $950.00 pymt $900.00 pymt $429.31 pymt $1,000.00 pymt -5377.18 9 11/07/2012 -12/07/2012 52,832.14 50.00 52,832.14 10 12/07/2012 -01/08/2013 53,706.90 50.00 53,706.90 11 01/08/2013 -02/08/2013 $2,853.26 $0.00 52,853.26 12 02/08/2013 -03/08/2013 53,484.63 $4,000.00 pyrnt 51,000.00 pyrnt -54,000.00 NG check $2,484.63 13 03/08/2012 -04/10/2012 $3,196.12 5999.00 pyrnt 51,000.00 pymt 51,000.00 pymt $999.97 pynt $999.98 pymt 5999.99 pymt $1,000.00 pymt -$3,802.82 14 04/10/2013 -05/10/2013 $3,162.36 $0.00 $3,162.36 15 05/10/2013 -06/12/2013 $4,761.27 $0.00 $4,761.27 16 06/01/2013 -07/10/2013 $3,286.28 $300.00 pymt $700.00 pymt 52,286.28 17 07/10/2013 -08/09/2013 53,464.51 50.00 53,464.51 18 08/09/2013 -09/11/2013 54,121.44 51,000.00 pynt 51,521.82 de2osit 526.14 de3. nt. $1,573.48 19 09/11/2013 -10/09/2013 52,795.05 $600.51 pymt $2,194.54 20 10/09/2013 -11/06/2013 $2,659.76 5500.76 pym: 5557.00 pymt $500.00 ymt $1,102.00 21 11/06/2013 -12/10/2013 53,047.84 50.00 53,047.84 22 12/10/2013 -01/10/2014 $3,222.65 $500.00 pymt $500.00 pymt 5300.00 pymt $300.00 pymt $250.00 pymt $1,372.65 23 01/10/2014 -02/10/2014 $4,702.82 50.00 54,702.82 24 02/10/2014 -03/11/2014 54,542.75 50.00 s4,542.75 TOTAL 03/08/2012 - 03/11/2014 $84,276.03 $31,509.97 $46,766.06 CUARO3S Account Activity Statement Date: 03/19/14 Page: 1 of 4 Account Information “ “ Current Account Status Account Number: Mail To: Service Address: Current Bill: $4542.75 45675—42101 MoDERN HEAT TREATING AND 1112 NIAGARA ST Billed Prior: $12223.31 BUFFALO NY 14213 Balance flue: $46766.06 Requested By; Credit Amount: 50.00 MODERN HEAT TREATING AND Budget Charges: $0.00 (716)884—2177 ERtension: 0000 Actual Charges; 50.00 ACTUAL ChARGE CREDIT TOTAL PREVIOUS DAYS DATE CHARGE TYPE CHARGE N400IIT AMOUNT BILL BALANCE USED KiHI TIIERNS 12—03—19 Payment $4705.50 12-04—10 Late Payment Charge $39.02 12—04—12 Payment $IODO.00 12—04—18 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1337.09 13200 96 12—04—la GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES CUR $958.04 17200 96 12—04—10 ELEC—SHALL BUSINESS SVC C&I 580.01 12—04—18 Regular Bill $4015.32 $1640.18 28 12—04—23 Payment $1521.15 12—05—02 RETURNED CNECK NSF CHARGE $10.00 12—05—02 Returned Check $1521.15 12-05—10 ELECTRIC SERVICE 51126.19 20000 76 12—05—10 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES CUR $1114.00 20000 76 12—05-10 ELEC-SHALL BUSINESS SVC C&I $80.01 12—05—10 Regular Bill $6345.52 $1601.16 33 12—05—11 Payment $100.00 12—05—16 Late Payment Charge $50.74 12—05—17 Payment $2000.00 12—06—07 Payment $1000.00 12-06—07 Late Payment Charge $48.68 12—06—12 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1574.96 21600 120 12—06-12 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR $1203.12 21600 120 12—06—12 ELEC—S1IALL BUSINESS SVC C&I 12—06—12 Regular Bill $6211.03 53352.94 34 12—06—19 Payment $3085.50 12—07—10 Late Payment Charge $46.89 12—07—12 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1699.42 21600 128 12—07—12 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES CUR $2219.19 21600 128 12—07—12 ELEC—SMALL BUSINESS SVC Cal $00.01 12—07—12 Regular Bill $7171.04 $3172.42 30 12—07—31 Payment $2965.51 12—08—09 Lace Payment Charge $63.00 12—08—10 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1894.20 23600 144 12—00—10 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR $2529.98 23600 114 12—Ge—Ia RETURNED CHECK NSF CILARGE $10.00 12—00—10 ELEC—SIIALL BUSINESS SVC Cal $80.01 12—08—10 Regular Bill $11747.31 $7234.12 29 12—08—10 Returned Check $2965.51 12—08—22 Payment $20.95 12—08—22 Payment 52500.00 12—09—11 Late Payment Charge $130.27 12—09—17 Payment $1000.00 12—09—19 Payment $1000.00 12—09—20 ELECTRIC SERVICE 51930.69 12—09—20 GATEWAY ENERGY 32400 140 SERVICES COR $1496.80 12—09—20 ELEC-SNALL BUSINESS 32400 140 SVC Cal $00.21 CUARG3O Account Activity Statement Date: 03/19/1.1 Page: 2 of 4 ACTUAL CHARGE CREDIT TOTAL PREVIOUS DAYS DATE CHARGE TYPE CHARGE AIIOUIIT NIOUNT BILL BALANCE USED KWH KW THERNS 12—09-20 Regular Bill $10064.41 $7356.63 29 12—09—21 Payment $600.00 12—09—26 Payment $600.00 12—10—02 Payment $500.00 :2-10—05 Deposit Interest $89.09 12-lu-IC Payment $500.00 12—10-11 ELECTRIC SERVICE 51501.117 15200 1211 12-10—11 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COB 5702.21 15200 120 12—13-11 Regular Bill $10058.63 $4929.47 31 12—10—18 Late Payment Charge $120.59 12—10-19 Payment $1000.00 12 10-22 Payment $1000.00 12—10—21 Payment $1000.00 12—11—05 Payment $1000.00 12—11—08 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1814.74 24000 12 11—08 GNrEWtY ENERGY SERVICES COR 51100.80 21000 132 12—11—00 Regular Bill $9910.76 $6907.22 30 12—11—JO Payment $150.00 12—11—30 Payment $950.00 22—11—30 Payment $900.00 12—11—30 Payment $129.31 12-11-30 Payment $1000.00 12—12—11 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1797.26 12—12-11 22400 132 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR 51034.80 22400 32 12—12—11 Regular Bill $6072.86 $6401.45 JO 12—12—19 Late Payment Charge 551.44 13-01—06 Late Payment Charge $139.69 13—01—22 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1009.53 35200 132 13—01—22 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR $1626.24 1301—22 35200 132 Regular Bill $13020.49 $9504.72 32 13—02-11 ELECTRIC SERVICE $2095.50 13—02—11 16400 160 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICZS COR $757.68 13—02—11 16400 160 Regular Bill $15073.75 $9313.59 31 13—02—2fl Late Payment Charge $195.28 13—03-:: ELECTRIC SERVICE $1997.91 13—03-12 GATEWAY 22000 148 ENERGY SERVICES COR $1053.36 22000 140 13—03—12 Regular Bill $19350.30 $16307.11 20 13—03—12 Late Payment Charge $230.00 13—01—01 Payment $4000.00 13-04—02 Payment $1000.00 13—01—09 Late Payment Charge $215.36 13—04—10 RETURNED CHECK OTHER ChARGE $10.00 13—04—10 Returned Checi: $4000.00 13—04—11 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1769.56 13—04—11 GATEWAY 26000 132 ENERGY SERVICES COR $1201.20 13—01—11 Pcgular 26000 131 Bill $1154 .50 $10573.74 13-01—12 Payment 33 $999.00 13—01—12 Payment $1000.00 13—04—17 Payment $1000.00 13—04—29 Payment $999•97 13—01—29 Payment $999.98 13-03-29 Payment $999.99 13—04—29 Payment 51000.00 13—05—09 Late Payment Charge 5210.32 CUARI38 Account Activity Statement Date: 03/19/14 Page: 3 of 4 ACTUAL CHARGE CREDIT TOTAL PREVIOUS DAYS DATE CHARGE TYPE CHARGE N-bUNT AIIOUIIT BILL 8ALAfICE USED THEFaIS 13-05—13 ELECTR1C SERVICE 51790.20 24000 152 13-05—13 GATEIIAY ENERGY SERVICES COR $1145.76 21000 152 13—05—13 Regular BrIl $17717.92 511773.88 30 13—06—fl Lace Payment Charge 5265.74 13—06—12 ELECtRIC SERVICE 51736.01 2-1000 148 3-06—12 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COB 52759.52 24000 140 13—06—12 Regular 8111 522479.19 517903.66 33 13—07—10 Late Payment Charge $337.16 13—07—12 ELECTRIC SERVICE 51670.22 10400 120 13—07—12 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR 51219.90 10400 128 13—07—12 Regular Bill $25765.47 $22016.35 26 13—07—23 Payment 700.00 13—08—06 Payment 5300.00 13-00—12 ELECTRiC SERVICE $1755.03 21200 132 13—08—12 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES CaR $1700.60 21200 132 13—00—12 Regular Bill $28229.98 $24765.47 30 13—08—13 Late Payment Charge $371.45 13—09—10 Late Payment Charge $423.42 13—09—12 ELEcTRIC SERVICE 51043.27 22000 140 13—09—12 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COB $1403.30 22000 140 13—09—12 Regular Bill $32351.42 $29024.65 3] 13-09-17 Payment $1000.00 13—09—20 Deposit $1521.82 13—10—04 Deposit Interest $26.14 13—10—10 ELECTRIC SERVICE 51350.05 14800 BR 13—10—10 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COP $969.15 14000 13—10—Ill Regular RiH $32598.51 530250.51 28 13-10—30 Late Payment Charge $147.05 13—10—15 Payment $600.51 13-11-07 Lace Payment Charge $479.98 13-11—08 ELECTRIC SERVICE 51284.65 14000 BR 13-11—00 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR 5095.13 14000 86 13—11—08 Regular Bill $34657.76 $32477.98 28 13—11—13 Payment $500.76 13—11—22 Payment $557.00 13—12—05 Payment $500.00 13—12—10 Late Payment Charge $496.51 13-12—11 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1317.15 17600 84 13—12—11 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR 51234.18 17600 84 13—12—11 Regular Bill $36147.04 $3J596.51 34 H—01—08 Late Payment Charge 5512.22 14—01-13 ELECTRtC SERVICE 51276.68 16000 00 :4—01—13 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COO 51.10375 16000 88 14—C1—13 Regular Bill $39370.49 $36690.06 31 14—01—16 Payment $500.00 14—01 23 Payment 5500.00 14—01—28 Payment $300.00 11—01—30 Payment $300.00 14—02—0-b Payment $250.00 :4—02—11 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5:267.23 20000 84 11 02-11 GATEWAY ENERGY SER’. ICES COP 52872.78 20000 84 14—02—11 Regular Bill $32223.31 $3R083.30 31 14—02—il Late Payment Charge $562.81 14—03—11 Late Payment Charge $633.36 CUAR036 Account Activity Statement Date: 03/19/14 Page: 4 of 4 ACTUAL CHARGE CREDIT TOTAL PREVIOUS DAYS DATE CHARGE TYPE CHARGE AJIOUFIT ANOUNT BILL BALANCE USED 1*111 KU THERtIS ‘l 03 13 Regular Bill $46766.06 $42056.67 29 14—03—13 ELECTRIC SERVICE $1452.13 20400 112 14—03-13 GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES COR $2457.26 20400 112 s ro EJIttIG PZPEX .ZUV *i PAGE 1 o14 MODERN HEAT ThEA11NG AND nationaigrid FORGING INC 1112 NIAGARA ST MarS, 2012 ACJ1T OL1q to AprS, 2012 •Sab1Jwp BUFFALO NY 14213 4567542101 ‘nnv.neisna!add corn May12, 2012 $ 4,015.32 CAl lS1NSS TWA liFe’S I’ DID YOU FORGET? ‘I 1400-66+8729 The total amount due Includes an unpaid balance from a previous bill, It you have already AUTOMATEI SERVCES paid this balance, please disregard this massage. Thank You. 1488-932-0301 ACCOUNT BALANCE GAS EMEGENCES Previous Balance 7,385.66 1-800492-2345 VOe3 IX I3kce 917 ernw.ncy Payment Received on APR 12 (ACH) -1,000.00 Payment Received on MARIO (Field Collect) -4,785.50 OUTAGE *140 0.ECThIC RG&4OS Balance FoNtard 1601,16 1400467-sm Camr4 Charges + 2,414.18 300 Ed. alvd West Amount Due - $ 4,015,32 Syracuse, Nil O2 TaavoIdaIepacnerU cba’ges ofl.5%4 4,015.32 nvjst be receked by May12 2012. DATE L SSIED Apr 18,2012 EmtIm.el mto,maJon SUMMARY OF CURRENT CHARGES TO n04 wWi a supØer oe ctw’g. In DEUvERY SUPPLY OThER CHARGESI aflame, eupphe,, vu we need lb. SEMI1CES SERVIcES *ZJUSTM€7{I3 TOTAL bbMng lntmmon atoot yci,r awt Electric Service 1,337.09 958,04 2,295,13 Lvane PrettIer *1mNm 4667542101 0ytc 8, MODE OtherchargesJAdjustmonb 119.03 119.03
Related Contentin Onondaga County
Case
Vinlandic, LLC v. Syracuse Stallions, LLC
Oct 10, 2023 |Lamendola, Hon. Joseph E. |Comm-Contract-Commercial Division |Comm-Contract-Commercial Division |011135/2023
Case
Valerie Chai v. Mark C Probus, Debra A Probus
Jan 12, 2024 |Commercial - Contract |Commercial - Contract |000439/2024
Case
Bankers Healthcare Group, Llc v. Willard L. Terry D/B/A Willard L. Terry, Sole Proprietor, Willard Terry
Aug 13, 2024 |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |008391/2024
Case
Bankers Healthcare Group v. Dayton Payments Llc, David L. Cochran
Aug 21, 2024 |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |008668/2024
Case
Bankers Healthcare Group, Llc v. Orion E Business Consulting. Llc, Ricardy Banks
Aug 23, 2024 |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |008762/2024
Case
Bankers Healthcare Group, Llc v. Christopher R. Jones, Jr. D/B/A Christopher R. Jones, Jr., M.D., Christopher Jones Jr
Aug 13, 2024 |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |008362/2024
Case
Bankers Healthcare Group v. James L. Pizzuti D/B/A James L. Pizzuti, Sole Proprietor, James L. Pizzuti
Aug 21, 2024 |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |008679/2024
Case
MCNEILL, MARY R. DBA RE MAX MASTERS v. MENTER, JAMES L.&DEBORAH J.; BARBARA
Apr 25, 2002 |Greenwood, Hon. Donald A. |Comm-Contract |Comm-Contract |01-0370
Case
Bankers Healthcare Group, Llc v. Nivon Wellness Center Llc, Nicole Billingsley, Von-Shan Billingsley
Aug 22, 2024 |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |008706/2024
Ruling
FOULKE, et al. vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Aug 19, 2024 |CVCV21-0197638
FOULKE, ET AL. VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANYCase Number: CVCV21-0197638This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of dismissal. This matter was removed to Federal Court andhas since settled. The Court was informed at previous review hearings that the only pending issue is attorney’sfees. The Court removes this case from the Court’s control due to the removal to Federal Court. The matter ishereby deemed exempt from case disposition time standards. The Court continues this Review Hearing toFebruary 10, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 63. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
DYNATRANS, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS YUNING SU, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
Aug 22, 2024 |24PSCV01221
Case Number: 24PSCV01221 Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 Dept: G Defendants Yuning Su and Plus & Beyond Express, LLCs Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint Respondent: Plaintiffs Dynatrans, Inc, and Shaoyue Li TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Yuning Su and Plus & Beyond Express, LLCs Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona). Defendants counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs counsel regarding the Demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the Demurrer. BACKGROUND This is an action for fraud and conversion. In 2017, Plaintiff Dynatrans, Inc, (Dynatrans) hired Defendant Yuning Su. From 2022 to 2023, Dynatrans alleges Su mishandled and embezzled Dynatranss funds. After Su quit in November 2023, Su allegedly attempted to steal Dynatranss business for Defendant Plus & Beyond Express, LLC (P&B). On April 16, 2024, Dynatrans and Shaoyue Li filed a complaint against Su, P&B, and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) actual interference with contractual relations, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, (4) conversion, (5) Penal Code section 496, (6) breach of loyalty pursuant to Labor Code sections 2860 and 2863, (7) intentional misrepresentation, (8) concealment, (9) false promise, (10) negligent misrepresentation, and (11) cancellation of instrument. On July 12, 2024, the Su and P&B filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for August 22, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service. ANALYSIS Su and P&B demur to Dynatrans and Lis first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action. For the following reasons, the court finds parties did not adequately meet and confer. Legal Standard Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. This section further provides that the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).) While Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(4) makes clear failing to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule a demurrer, courts are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process and if the court determines no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort. (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355 & fn. 3.) Discussion Here, Su and P&Bs counsel attempted to meet and confer by sending an email to Dynatrans and Lis counsel on May 28, 2024. (Gross Decl., ¶ 3.) Because email communications are not code-compliant means of meeting and conferring and counsels declaration does not state if counsel held telephonic discussions, the court finds the parties have failed to adequately meet and confer. Thus, a continuance of the hearing on their demurrer is appropriate. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Su and P&Bs demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona). The Su and P&Bs counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Dynatrans and Lis counsel regarding the demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the demurrer.
Ruling
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS PLENTITUDE TRANSPORTATION, INC., A CORPORATION
Sep 03, 2024 |24LBCV00034
Case Number: 24LBCV00034 Hearing Date: September 3, 2024 Dept: S27 Matthew Huzaineh, attorney for Defendant, Plentitude Transportation, Inc., seeks to be relieved as counsel. Counsel declares Client has not paid the requisite retainer fee, and has indicated an intent not to do so. Counsel served Client at a confirmed address, and filed proof of service of the moving papers on Client and all parties who have appeared in the action. The Court notes that there will be no prejudice as a result of granting the motion, as trial is not scheduled until April of 2025. In light of the lack of opposition and lack of prejudice, the motion is granted. Relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Client. Counsel is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.
Ruling
HOTEL INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CONSOLIDATED VENTURE CAPITAL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Aug 20, 2024 |6/18/2022 |19SMCV01265
Case Number: 19SMCV01265 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to receive the courts tentative ruling.
Ruling
Bally Keal Vineyards, LLC, a California limited liability company vs. NV5 Global, Inc., a Delaware stock corporation et al
Aug 21, 2024 |CU23-01703
CU23-01703Demurrer; Motion to StrikeTENTATIVE RULINGDemurrerThe demurrer by Defendants Utility Link, LLC and Czahar is overruled in part andsustained without leave to amend in part.Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty isoverruled. A fiduciary relationship may arise as a matter of law between a principal andagent. (Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 410-411; Oakland Raidersv. Nat’l Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 632.) An agency relationship iscreated by the assent of both parties, manifested by either an enforceable contract or bythe conduct of the parties. (Luu, 150 Cal.App.4th at 411.) Plaintiff has sufficientlyalleged that an agency relationship was created when Defendants assented to act asPlaintiff’s agents to prepare and submit a NEM 2.0 application by executing a Third-Party Authorization form. (FAC, ¶ 15.) While lack of control might ultimately defeatPlaintiff’s claim that an agency relationship was created between the parties,Defendants fail to establish that Plaintiff is required to allege facts demonstrating controlat the pleading stage. Plaintiff has also alleged that Defendants breached their fiduciaryduty to Plaintiff by failing to timely prepare and submit the NEM 2.0 application, causingPlaintiff to become ineligible for a higher compensation rate for electricity sent to thegrid by Plaintiff’s solar system. (FAC, ¶¶ 12, 15-16, 29-30.)Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for negligence is overruled. “Adefendant who enters upon an affirmative course of conduct affecting the interests ofanother is regarded as assuming a duty to act, and will be liable for negligent acts oromissions, because one who undertakes to do an act must do it with care.” (Bloombergv. Interinsurance Exch. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 571, 575; Schwartz v. Helms Bakery,Ltd. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 232, 238; Rickley v. Goodfriend (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1136,1156.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendants assumed a duty of care by undertaking thepreparation and submission of Plaintiff’s NEM 2.0 application. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 37.) And,while Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no damages because Plaintiff is still eligible forthe NEM 2.0 compensation rate, relying on an unauthenticated proposed decision of thePublic Utilities Commission simply attached as an exhibit to the demurrer, Defendantshave not sought judicial notice of this decision and the court would be unable to takejudicial notice of the truth or proper interpretation of its contents. (StorMedia Inc. v.Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9; Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v. Monroy(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 987-988; Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (2012) 209Cal.App.4th 182, 193.)Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for “promissory estoppel” issustained without leave to amend. Promissory estoppel is merely a “doctrine whichemploys equitable principles to satisfy the requirement that consideration must be givenin exchange for the promise sought to be enforced.” (C & K Eng’g Contractors v. AmberSteel Co.m Inc. (1978) 23 Cal.3d 1, 6, quoting Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Ass’n(1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 672.) Promissory estoppel substitutes the promisee’s justifiableand detrimental reliance for the consideration required to form an enforceable contract.(Toscano v. Greene Music (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 685, 692-693; Signal Hill AviationCo., Inc. v. Bill Stroppe (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 627, 640.) In order for a promise to beenforceable, it must be “definite enough that a court can determine the scope of theduty, and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rationalbasis for the assessment of damages.” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (2013) 214Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) All facts relied on to establish the elements of promissoryestoppel must be specifically pleaded. (Smith v. City and County of San Francisco(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 38, 48.) Not only has Plaintiff failed to allege with specificity anypromise given to Plaintiff by Defendants Utility Link and Czahar, Plaintiff fails to allegecirc*mstances demonstrating that an enforceable agreement would have been formedbetween the parties but for a failure of consideration that might be overcome byPlaintiff’s reasonable reliance on Defendants’ promise. Plaintiff has made no effort tomeet its burden of showing in what manner it can amend the pleading and how theproposed amendment would cure the defect. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d335, 349.)Motion to StrikeDefendants’ motion to strike is denied.The first amended complaint sufficiently sets forth facts supporting alter ego liability.Alter ego liability is sufficiently alleged by allegations “that a unity of interest andownership existed between [the parties]; that [the business entity] was a mere shell andconduit for [the owner’s] affairs; that [the business entity] was inadequately capitalized;that [the business entity] failed to abide by the formalities of corporate existence; that[the owner] used [the business entity’s] assets as her own; and that recognizing theseparate existence of [the business entity] would promote injustice.” (RutherfordHoldings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 235.) As was the case inRutherford Holdings, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that there is a unity of interestbetween Defendants Czahar and Utility Link, Defendants intertwined and commingledtheir assets, Defendant Utility Link was undercapitalized, Defendant Czahar divertedDefendant Utility Link’s assets for her own personal use, Defendant Utility Link was amere shell, instrumentality, or conduit for Defendant Czahar’s business, DefendantUtility Link disregarded corporate formalities, and recognizing the separate existence ofDefendant Utility Link would promote fraud and injustice. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Furtherspecificity is unnecessary because Defendants can be assumed to possess superiorknowledge of the facts. (Rutherford Holdings, 223 Cal.App.4th at 236.)The falsity of Plaintiff’s allegations that Plaintiff has been damaged because it becameineligible for NEM 2.0 compensation as a result of Defendants’ failure to timely submitan application cannot be determined from the face of the first amended complaint orfrom any judicially noticeable matter. As already discussed, Defendants did not seekjudicial notice of the PUC proposed decision and, even if they had, the court would nothave been able to take judicial notice of the truth or proper interpretation of the contentsof the decision.Lastly, ”[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and inevery case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of thejury.” (Civ. Code § 3288.) The jury can award interest even if the plaintiff’s damages arenot liquidated. (Redke v. Silvertrust (1971) 6 Cal.3d 94, 106.) Plaintiff has adequatelystated tort causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence and may seekaward of prejudgment interest for these causes of action.
Ruling
Mark Shevitz et al vs Bradley G Vernon et al
Aug 23, 2024 |Judge Donna D. Geck |23CV04471
Tentative not yet posted, please check again.
Ruling
WILDFLOWER BRANDS INC., A CANADIAN CORPORATION VS MARIA CAMACHO, ET AL.
Aug 21, 2024 |23STCV06559
Case Number: 23STCV06559 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 39 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 39 HEARING DATE August 21, 2024 CASE NUMBER 23STCV06559 MOTIONS Motion for Stay MOVING PARTY Defendant 6200 S. Wilton Place, LLC OPPOSING PARTY Plaintiff Wildflower Brands, Inc. MOTION Plaintiff Wildflower Brands Inc. (Plaintiff) sued Defendant 6200 S. Wilton Place, LLC (Defendant) regarding breach of a lease agreement. Defendant seeks an order staying this action until the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Bankruptcy and Insolvency rules upon: (1) whether the Parties claims may proceed in this action; and (2) whether a trustee is appointed over [Plaintiff]. (Notice of Motion, p. 2.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. As authority for this motion, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30. That statute provides a defendant may make a motion to stay or dismiss for inconvenient forum when in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state . . . . (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (a).) Since the filing of Defendants motion on April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Bankruptcy and Insolvency has ruled this action may proceed, stating the stay of proceedings no longer operates concerning cross-complaints brought against Plaintiff in this action, and the application Plaintiff be adjudged bankrupt and for a bankruptcy order to be made concerning Plaintiffs property is stayed pending conclusion of the instant matter. (Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Sur-Reply, Exhibit A (May 31, 2024, Order Made After Application in the Matter of the Receivership of Wildflower Brands Inc. in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry No. B-220360).) Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants motion is now moot and places it off calendar. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and to file proof of service of same.
Ruling
EVELYN CRISTINA RIVAS GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS 7934 LAUREL CANYON BLVD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Aug 21, 2024 |19STCV28803
Case Number: 19STCV28803 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 8-21-24 Case #19STCV28803 Trial Date: 10-17-24 ADMISSIONS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Marina Mendoza RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Geeta Mehta, Executor of the Estate of Anil Mehta RELIEF REQUESTED Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs allege substandard habitability conditions in an apartment building owned and/or managed by Defendants. On August 14, 20219, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, Tortious Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Private Nuisance, Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Negligence. RULING: Denied. Plaintiff Marina Mendoza (the notice of motion identifies Evelyn Gonzalez, but the attached exhibit lists Mendoza as the propounding party) moves to deem Requests for Admissions Admitted based on the failure to serve a verification with the responses. Plaintiff alternatively moves to compel further responses. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. The motion was only reserved as a motion to deem responses to admissions admitted. The court will not consider any motion to compel further responses, due to the improper reservation of such a motion. The motion to deem admissions admitted relies on the lack of verification. Unverified responses constitute no response. (Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636.) Pure objections however need not contain a verification. [Declaration of Shilpa Anand.] (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a).) Plaintiff otherwise concedes the objections were timely served, thereby precluding any finding of a waiver of objections. The motion is therefore DENIED on this basis. Even if the court considered the improperly reserved and noticed motion to compel further responses, the motion lacks sufficient support. The motion was timely filed after service of the objections, and also includes a separate statement. The court however finds an insufficient meet and confer effort supporting such a motion. The meet and confer only addresses the lack of verification without any address on the merits of the objections. The motion is therefore denied either way. A second motion on admissions for September 16, 2024, a motion for protective order and third motion to deem admissions admitted on September 18, two motions to compel deposition on October 9, and 16, 204, and five (5) scheduled motions to compel further responses in January 2025. The latter five items are scheduled well after the October 17, 2024, trial date. Any and all efforts to advance any of the numerous hearings via stipulation or ex parte motion to a date before the trial date may lead to the sua sponte setting of an expedited OSC re: Discovery Referee. The court encourages the parties to meet and confer. Plaintiff to give notice.
Document
Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v. Pcl Properties, Llc
Nov 24, 2015 |Anthony J Paris |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |2015EF4805
Document
Bankers Healthcare Group, Llc v. Charles W.A. Crouse D/B/A Charles W.A. Crouse, Sole Proprietor, Charles Crouse
Oct 02, 2023 |Hon. Danielle M. Fogel |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |010813/2023
Document
Aug 24, 2012 |James P. Murphy |Commercial |Commercial |2012EF1159
Document
Jun 23, 2017 |Joseph E. Lamendola |Torts - Product Liability (Commerical Heater Failure) |Torts - Product Liability (Commerical Heater Failure) |2017EF2650
Document
Materials Direct, Llc, Build Your Own Home, Llc v. Paul K Maddox, Gail A. Maddox
Sep 08, 2020 |Donald A. Greenwood |Commercial - Contract |Commercial Division |005658/2020
Document
Bankers Healthcare Group, Llc v. Tjf Management Group Llc, Thomas Frederick
Apr 10, 2024 |Joseph E. Lamendola |Commercial - Business Entity |Commercial - Business Entity |003707/2024
Document
Jdc Property Group, L.L.C. v. Northern Industrial Properties Group, Llc, First American Title Insurance Company, A Division Of First American Financial Corporation
Mar 26, 2015 |Donald A. Greenwood |Commercial |Commercial |2015EF1420
Document
Capstone Contracting Group, Llc v. Victor Duniec, Deborah Duniec
Aug 16, 2024 |Commercial - Contract |Commercial - Contract |008548/2024
