Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20VECV00691, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20VECV00691    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: W

SPOTLIGHT TICKET MANAGEMENT, INC. v. EBAY INC., et al.

DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO HAVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION HEARD LESS THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL

Date of Hearing:        December 21, 2022              Trial Date:       May 15, 2023

Department:              W                                            Case No.:        20VECV00691

Moving Party:            Defendant Stubhub Inc.    

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Spotlight Ticket Management, Inc.  

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Spotlight Ticket Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it had an agreement to serve as a member of the StubHub Affiliate Program (the “Affiliate Program”) for Defendants eBay, Inc. (“eBay”) and StubHub, Inc. (“StubHub”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s role was to direct consumers to Defendants’ ticket platform in exchange for commissions on orders. Plaintiff alleges that it was not being paid commissions according to the terms and conditions of the Affiliate Program because StubHub was underreporting and misrepresenting commissionable transactions owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s contract, contractual interests, and business interests with non-party American Express (“Amex”), which hired Plaintiff to manage its own ticketing platform as part of a concierge service for Amex’s cardholders. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants instructed Amex not to share data detailing ticket purchases facilitated through StubHub, and this data helped Plaintiff to discover the underpayment of money owed to them from Defendants.

On October 12 2022, Plaintiff filed its operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants asserting seven causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract – nondisclosure agreement; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) quantum meruit; (6) promissory estoppel; (7)¿unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; (8) tortious interference with contractual relations; (9) tortious interference with the performance of a contract; and (10) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against defendants.

On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed their second cause of action.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Stubhub, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to have Motion for Summary Adjudication heard less than 30 days before trial is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Stubhub, Inc. moves for an order permitting a hearing on its Motion for Summary Adjudication within 30 days of trial.

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. The motion may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.” (CCP §437c(a)(1).) “¿The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.” (CCP §437c(a)(3).) 

According to Defendant Stubhub, given the short amount of time between when Spotlight filed its SAC and the May 15, 2023 trial date in this matter, it was not possible for StubHub to reserve a date that complied with the notice periods required for a motion for summary judgment and the statutory deadline in the Court’s reservation system, while also providing sufficient time for StubHub to take the depositions necessary to proceed with its motion.

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Plaintiff argues, however, Defendant StubHub is merely fishing in discovery and that it intends to use a motion for summary adjudication to disrupt Spotlight’s pretrial preparations. Plaintiff contends Defendant StubHub should not be able to use this second motion to rehash issues raised or addressed in the first motion for summary adjudication nor should StubHub be able to raise in any belated motion issues that could have been raised previously.

The court finds that Defendant Stubhub has demonstrated good cause to permit a hearing of its MSA within 30 days of trial as plaintiff filed a late motion for leave to amend requiring additional discovery and Stubhub acted with reasonable diligence in reserving a hearing date for its MSA. The court notes Defendant must comply with all applicable statutes in filing their motion for summary adjudication including Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f)(2).