Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV34632, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34632    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 39

Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

Case No. 20STCV34632

Order #1 of 2

Motion to Bifurcate

            Plaintiff Dependable Highway Express (“Dependable” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action on September 10, 2020, against Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (“Lewis Brisbois” or “Defendant”), asserting a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff alleges that Lewis Brisbois counseled a client, believed to be Famosa, Inc. (“Famosa”), in a manner that injured Plaintiff, another Lewis Brisbois client.  (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 10.)  The amount of payment for damage during interstate transportation is limited by the Carmack Amendment.  (Id., ¶ 14.)  Plaintiff alleges that Famosa, which imports marble, sought a legal opinion from Lewis Brisbois to determine whether Famosa could “sidestep the limits of the Carmack Amendment and [] maximize Famosa’s financial recovery in case of damage to sheets of marble that it intended to import into Santa Ana from Brazil in 2017.”  (Id., ¶ 15.)  Plaintiff alleges that Lewis Brisbois advised Famosa to end the international shipment at the arrival port, and then move the cargo inland, in order to break the nexus with interstate commerce and subject the last inland carrier to California’s laws rather than the Carmack Amendment.  (Id., ¶ 18.)  Famosa hired Plaintiff to handle the last leg of the transportation, and the cargo was damaged.  (Id., ¶¶ 20-21.)  Lewis Brisbois allegedly provided a demand letter to Dependable, seeking damages under California law, and Dependable took the position that its liability was limited under the Carmack Amendment.  (Id., ¶¶ 21-26.)  Lewis Brisbois allegedly has represented Dependable for several decades.  (Id., ¶ 7.) 

            Defendant moves to bifurcate Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages at trial, per Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 2985(b).  The motion is granted.  Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #2 of 2

Motion for Reconsideration

            Plaintiff Dependable Highway Express (“Dependable” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action against Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, L.L.P. (“Lewis Brisbois” or “Defendant”) for breach of fiduciary duty.  On August 29, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to certain Requests for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories.  (See Minute Order, dated August 29, 2022.)  The parties largely resolved their dispute following an informal discovery conference but the Court ruled on “whether Lewis Brisbois has waived attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection.”  (See Ibid.)  The Court answered this question in the negative.  (See ibid.)  The Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.080 and its predecessor to permit a client suing his attorney to gain access to work product from his own case in order to prove the malpractice at issue.  (See ibid.)  The Court concluded that section 2018.080 did not govern this case because “Plaintiff seeks Lewis Brisbois’s work product relating to its legal advice to, and representation of, Famosa.”  (Ibid.)    

            Now, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that ruling based upon purportedly authority in the Court’s minute order.  Plaintiff’s counsel takes that authority out-of-context.  The Court stated: “It appears as though the parties have resolved all other disputes at issue in Plaintiff’s motion, but either party may file a motion for reconsideration if the Court is incorrect in its interpretation of the parties’ joint status report.”  (Ibid.)  The Court only gave authorization to file a motion for reconsideration for a misinterpretation of the parties’ joint status report, i.e., if there are other disputes the Court must resolve.  The Court did not authorize the parties to file a motion for reconsideration for the dispute resolved on August 29, 2022, beyond the dictates of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.  Because Defendant did not request sanctions, the Court orders none.  Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.