Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00287, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 19CMCV00287    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: A

19CMCV00287 Logistics by Supra, LLC, et al v. Tricap International, LLC et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A REFEREE

I.        BACKGROUND

The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed on April 11, 2022, seeks collection of a debt allegedly owed by Defendants pursuant to a written agreement for shipment services rendered by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, fraud, common counts, and breach of settlement agreement against Defendant, Cargomatic, only.

On June 14, 2021, the Hon. Kristin Escalante, granted Cargomatic’s motion to compel arbitration of the sixth and seventh causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and issued a stay of both claims. Min. Ord. 6/14/21.  On November 18, 2021, the Hon. Thomas Long heard and continued Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amendment to the SAC. After conferring with counsel, the court ordered a stay of the entire action pending arbitration. All dates were vacated. Min. Ord. 11/18/21.

On March 30, 2022, Judge Long heard and granted Plaintiffs’ continued motion to amend the SAC. The court set a non-jury trial for May 30, 2023. Plaintiffs filed the TAC on April 11, 2022. While the order did not expressly lift the stay, it is implied by the court’s order setting a trial date.

II.         MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A REFEREE FILED ON JUNE 22, 2022

Plaintiffs argue that an appointment of a referee is necessary to hear and decide a “long accounting” consisting of approximately 363 invoices and supporting documents for a balance due of $368,931.15. Plaintiffs have made all documents available to Defendants who will not consent to the appointment of a referee. The referee will determine how much is owed by Defendants based on the invoices. The referee will be privately compensated; however, Plaintiffs do not disclose the referee’s compensation or who will bear the expenses.

Plaintiffs timely served the motion on defense counsel for all answering Defendants on June 13, 2022. No opposition has been filed.

III.   DISCUSSION

            The court has discretion to appoint a nonconsensual referee (a “special referee”) on limited statutory grounds. This includes “[w]hen the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account on either side; in which case the referees may be directed to hear and decide the whole issue, or report upon any specific question of fact involved therein." Code Civ. Proc., § 639(a)(2). The referee for “examination of a long account” is permitted because “a trained accountant is generally better able to efficiently and inexpensively examine a ‘long account’ than a trial court judge is able to do through adversarial court proceedings.” De Guere v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 482, 499. The referee must know the proper accounting methodology to be applied and the necessary accounting records at issue.” Id.

            Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that appointment of a referee is appropriate in this case. This is a collections action.  Plaintiffs do not disclose whether the case presents multiple or complex issues to be resolved. While the supporting documentation appears voluminous, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how this evidence would create an undue burden on the court.  Plaintiffs can present the supporting documentation in an organized manner accompanied by an expert’s determination of the balance due based on the appropriate accounting methodology.  Code Civ. Proc., § 643(c). After consideration of objections, the court enters appropriate orders. Id.  Plaintiffs have not articulated how any potential burden on the court is decreased through a referee since this matter is set for a non-jury trial.

            Plaintiffs have not disclosed payment arrangements or the cost of appointing a referee. Plaintiffs state that the “court may wish to appoint the referee or allow the parties to do so.” Motion 5:18-20.  Moreover, Plaintiffs do not describe the efforts made to stipulate to appointment of a referee.                    

IV.   CONCLUSION

In the absence of the information identified above and without consent of the parties, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.