Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV03019, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03019    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Shipflex Logistics LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Shipflex Logistics LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about May 1, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant Polit Inc. dba Pilot Automotive Inc. (“Defendant”) entered into an Operating Services Agreement relating to a lease at a warehouse located at 13000 Temple Ave., City of Industry, CA 91746, whereby Plaintiff would provide transportation management and inventory management-related services in exchange for Defendant’s payment. Defendant has failed to pay $255,952.20.

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-20 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Common Counts

On November 21, 2023, Defendant’s default was entered.

A Case Management Conference is set for March 4, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiff is requested to point out the attorney’s fees clause in the Operating Services Agreement (“Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Zhaohui Wang (“Wang”).

2.                  Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees calculation, assuming Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees, have been erroneously calculated pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, subdivision (b) (i.e., for “[c]ontested case[s]”) rather than subdivision (a).

3.                  The nature of the Agreement between the parties is unclear. Plaintiff characterizes it as a “lease at a warehouse located at 13000 Temple Ave., City of Industry, CA 91746 whereby Plaintiff would provide transportation management and inventory management related services to . . . DEFENDANT.” (Wang Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A). The Agreement reflects that Plaintiff, identified therein as “Party B,” was to provide third-party logistics (“3PL”) services to Defendant, identified therein as “Party A.” (Id.) Defendant is represented therein to “operate warehousing businesses with its warehouse and facilities located at 13000 Temple Avenue, City of Industry, CA, 91746 (the ‘Warehouse”).” (Id.) The Agreement provides that Plaintiff’s 3PL services were to be provided at the Warehouse (Id., ¶ 1.2) and that Party A (i.e., Defendant”) “shall have the right to terminate this Agreement on ninety (90) days’ prior written notice to Party A if Party B: (1) failed to pay rent past 60 days.” (Id., ¶ 3.2(a).) The language suggests that Plaintiff is a tenant of the Warehouse, but again, this is unclear to the court. It is unclear whether the parties’ Agreement has terminated or is ongoing. Wang has failed to state that Plaintiff has performed under the Agreement (stating, “[w]ithin four years preceding the commencement of this action, at the special instance and request of DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF provided to said DEFENDANT. . .;” Wang Decl., ¶ 5.)

4.                  It is also unclear to the court how Plaintiff’s damages were calculated. The Agreement fails to identify any monetary amounts owed by Defendant. Although the Agreement references Schedule 2.1 for payment details, Schedule 2.1 (entitled “Services Fee”) has all monetary amounts blocked out. Further, Schedule 2.1 reflects that certain monies were to be paid by “Party B,” which, again, is Plaintiff.