On March 20, 2019 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc,
and
Mcclanahan, Alex,
Mcclanahan, Alexandria,
Total Trucking Service, Inc.,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
r
1 Howard Goodman State Bar 76570
18321 Ventura Blvd Suite 755
SUPER Qp E
2 Tarzana California 913 56 4228
818 996 8903 SA
counr
s
y o S r P c aEiF
A
RNAFDIh p Q
3 Fax 818 996 2942 Nn N
N
Howard@howardgoodman net a 3
4 2
Attorney for Plaintiff t aw t
A
5
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
g COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
9
10 FLEXI VAN LEASING INC CASE NO CIVDS1934003
11
Plaintiff REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
12 PLAINTIFF S APPLICATION FOR
RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER
13 vs WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
14 TOTAL TRUCKING SERVICES INC
ET AL DATE SEPTEMBER 2 2020
15 TIME 10 AM
DEPT S24
16 Defendants
17
I
18
INTRODUCTION
19
Plaintiff FLEXI VAN LEASING INC FVL seeks a right to attach order and writ of
20
attachment against defendant TOTAL TRUCKING SERVICES INC arising from the rental of
21
chassis on account In its opposition TOTAL TRUCKING has made two contentions First
22
TOTAL TRUCKING contends that because of the suspension of its account on or about
23
February 2018 because of its delinquency it could not rent chassis from plaintiff Second
24
TOTAL TRUCKING contends it was prevented from timely returning chassis because its
25
customers YTI and OCEAN NETWORK interfered with the prompt return of chassis TOTAL
26
TRUCKING has cross complained against its customers in this action for substantial damages
27
related to this interference As hereafter discussed suspension by FVL did not prevent TOTAL
28
TRUCKING from pulling chassis at the chassis pool at the ports If the suspension had
Points Authorities in reply to opposition to application for attachment
A 1
1 prevented TOTAL TRUGKING from pulling chassis then TOTAL TRUCKING would not have
2 actually pulled chassis after February 2018 And yet TOTAL TRUCKTNG readily
3 acknowledges that it has been pulling chassis from the pool well after February 2018 There is
4 no gate control at the ports that would enable any chassis provider at t e ports to prevent a
5 customer from taking chassis
Second the indemnity claim by TOTAL TRUCKING against its
6 shippers for interference daes not operate to release TQTAL TRUCKTNG from its abligatian ta
7
FVL to pay rent for chassis Interference by its shippers may justify recovery from the shippers
8 af the rent which TCJTAL TRUCKING owes FVL But it doesn t excuse TQTAL TRUCk INCar
9 fram its rental obligation
10 II
11 THE CONTENTION THAT CHASSIS COULD NOT BE
12 RENTED AFTER SUSPENSION IS CONTRADICTED
13 BY THE ACTUAL AND C4NTINUOUS TAKING OF
14 CHASSIS FRC M THE P40L
15 In her declaratian in oppositian to the applicatian for attachment Susan McClanahan
16 states at paragraph 26
17 26 Furthermore as of February 2018 TOTAL TRUCKING was suspended by FLEXI
AN and could not individually rent any of the intermodal pool chassis in which FLEXI
18 VAN participate in TOTAL TRUCKING could not have rented any of the chassis
identified in this complaint as a result of this suspension
19
This opinion testimony is false and the declarant clearly lacks personal knowledge to
20
furnish the opinion The declarant makes the assumption that because of the account suspension
21
FVL could prevent TOTAL TRUCKING from taking chassis from the pool at the ports The
22
assumption is clearly wrong since TC7TAL TRUCKING continued to rent pool chassis for month
23
after TOTAL TRUCKING first became delinquent on its account If TC TAL TRUCKTNG had
24
been prevented from taking chassis and cantainers at the ports as the declarant contends then it
25
fo lows that it wauld not have happened And yet it is uncontroverted that T TAL TRUCKING
26
did take chassis lots afthem The fact is that TOTAL TRUCI ING is a serial violator with
2 7
respect to chassis and container rentals from the ports resulting in hundreds of thousands of
28
Paints Authorities in reply to oppositian to application for attachment
2
Document Filed Date
August 31, 2020
Case Filing Date
March 20, 2019
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
r 1 Howard Goodman State Bar 76570 18321 Ventura Blvd Suite 755 SUPER Qp E 2 Tarzana California 913 56 4228 818 996 8903 SA counr s y o S r P c aEiF A RNAFDIh p Q 3 Fax 818 996 2942 Nn N N Howard@howardgoodman net a 3 4 2 Attorney for Plaintiff t aw t A 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA g COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 9 10 FLEXI VAN LEASING INC CASE NO CIVDS1934003 11 Plaintiff REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO 12 PLAINTIFF S APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER 13 vs WRIT OF ATTACHMENT 14 TOTAL TRUCKING SERVICES INC ET AL DATE SEPTEMBER 2 2020 15 TIME 10 AM DEPT S24 16 Defendants 17 I 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff FLEXI VAN LEASING INC FVL seeks a right to attach order and writ of 20 attachment against defendant TOTAL TRUCKING SERVICES INC arising from the rental of 21 chassis on account In its opposition TOTAL TRUCKING has made two contentions First 22 TOTAL TRUCKING contends that because of the suspension of its account on or about 23 February 2018 because of its delinquency it could not rent chassis from plaintiff Second 24 TOTAL TRUCKING contends it was prevented from timely returning chassis because its 25 customers YTI and OCEAN NETWORK interfered with the prompt return of chassis TOTAL 26 TRUCKING has cross complained against its customers in this action for substantial damages 27 related to this interference As hereafter discussed suspension by FVL did not prevent TOTAL 28 TRUCKING from pulling chassis at the chassis pool at the ports If the suspension had Points Authorities in reply to opposition to application for attachment A 1 1 prevented TOTAL TRUGKING from pulling chassis then TOTAL TRUCKING would not have 2 actually pulled chassis after February 2018 And yet TOTAL TRUCKTNG readily 3 acknowledges that it has been pulling chassis from the pool well after February 2018 There is 4 no gate control at the ports that would enable any chassis provider at t e ports to prevent a 5 customer from taking chassis Second the indemnity claim by TOTAL TRUCKING against its 6 shippers for interference daes not operate to release TQTAL TRUCKTNG from its abligatian ta 7 FVL to pay rent for chassis Interference by its shippers may justify recovery from the shippers 8 af the rent which TCJTAL TRUCKING owes FVL But it doesn t excuse TQTAL TRUCk INCar 9 fram its rental obligation 10 II 11 THE CONTENTION THAT CHASSIS COULD NOT BE 12 RENTED AFTER SUSPENSION IS CONTRADICTED 13 BY THE ACTUAL AND C4NTINUOUS TAKING OF 14 CHASSIS FRC M THE P40L 15 In her declaratian in oppositian to the applicatian for attachment Susan McClanahan 16 states at paragraph 26 17 26 Furthermore as of February 2018 TOTAL TRUCKING was suspended by FLEXI AN and could not individually rent any of the intermodal pool chassis in which FLEXI 18 VAN participate in TOTAL TRUCKING could not have rented any of the chassis identified in this complaint as a result of this suspension 19 This opinion testimony is false and the declarant clearly lacks personal knowledge to 20 furnish the opinion The declarant makes the assumption that because of the account suspension 21 FVL could prevent TOTAL TRUCKING from taking chassis from the pool at the ports The 22 assumption is clearly wrong since TC7TAL TRUCKING continued to rent pool chassis for month 23 after TOTAL TRUCKING first became delinquent on its account If TC TAL TRUCKTNG had 24 been prevented from taking chassis and cantainers at the ports as the declarant contends then it 25 fo lows that it wauld not have happened And yet it is uncontroverted that T TAL TRUCKING 26 did take chassis lots afthem The fact is that TOTAL TRUCI ING is a serial violator with 2 7 respect to chassis and container rentals from the ports resulting in hundreds of thousands of 28 Paints Authorities in reply to oppositian to application for attachment 2