Preview
Electronically Filed
3/26/2021 3:35 PM
Superior Court of California
Jakrun S. Sodhi (State Bar No. 200851) County of Stanislaus
Ameet S. Birring (State Bar N0. 297118) Clerk of the Court
SODI-II LAW GROUP By: Angela Mesa, Deputy
1301 K Street, Suite F
Modesto, CA 95354
Telephone: 209.900.8200 $435 PAID
Facsimile: 209.900.8205
Ameet@sodhilawgroup.com
Jak@sodhjlawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR TRANS IN C.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10 PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR Case No.: CV-21-001662
TRANS INC.,
11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
MARTEN TRANSPORT LOGISTICS, LLC,
14 a foreign limited liability company; and DOES
1 to 100, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR TRANS INC., alleging, against
19
Defendants as follows:
20
FACTS
21
1. Plaintiff, PATTAR TRANSPORT is a California partnership with its principal office in
22
Stanislaus County, State of Califomia.
23
2. Plaintiff, PATTAR TRANS INC. is a California corporation with its principal office in
24
Stanislaus County, State of California.
25
3. MARTEN TRANSPORT LOGISTICS, LLC, (“Marten Transport” or “Defendant”) is a
26
Wisconsin limited liability company conducting continuous and systemic business throughout California
27
so that it has purposefully availed itself to the privileges of conducting business in California.
28
-1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Tr: assignmmmge Speiller, Stacy
Dept. 22
Depart-an .malpupusesmmmgmal
4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore sue said
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that those
defendants sued herein as DOES lthrough 100, inclusive, are in some way responsible for the damages
and/or events referred to in this Complaint, either through his/her/its own conduct, or vicariously through
the conduct of others and each of said DOE defendants proximately and legally caused the damages
sustained by Plaintiffs as herein alleged. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to insert the true names and
capacities of the DOE defendants when the same have been ascertained.
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, that at all times herein alleged,
10 defendants at some or all times acted by and through their various principals, associates, employees,
11 partners, agents, officers, or servants, and that each and every defendant was the principal, agent, servant,
12 employee, partner, joint venture, predecessor, and/or successor in interest of each and every remaining
13 defendant, and that in doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein was acting within the course and
14 scope of such agency, servitude, employment, partnership, joint venture, and as predecessor and/or
15 successor in interest, and with the express and/or implied knowledge and consent of each and every
16 remaining defendant.
17 6. This Court is the proper court in which to bring this action because the underlying
18 contracts were executed and performed within its jurisdiction and the breach of the contracts occurred
19 within its jurisdiction.
20 7. Plaintiffs are in the business of freight transportation.
21 8. Marten Transport is an authorized freight broker under the United States Department of
22 Transport.
23 9. Marten Transport would broker the loads to Plaintiffs.
24 10. Marten Transport would contact Plaintiff in Turlock, CA with a possible freight load and a
25 price. If the price was agreeable, Plaintiff would accept the freight assignment in Turlock, CA.
26 11. ln early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten
27 Transport.
28 12. Plaintiffs invoiced Marten Transport for the loads.
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13. To date, Plaintiffs have not been paid for freight transpofiation services rendered.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
14. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 13 above as though fully set forth herein.
15. Plaintiffs are in the freight transpo1t business.
16. Marten T1‘anspo1t is an authorized freight broker under the United States Department of
Transport.
17. Maiten Transport would broker the loads to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would transport the loads
per Malten Transport’s instructions.
10 18. There was previously a written contract between Plaintiffs’ predecessor~in-interest and
11 Defendant. However, that contract expired, and the paities carried on the relationship in an implied—in-
12 fact manner.
13 19. Marten Transport would contact Plaintiff in Turlock, CA with a possible freight load and a
14 price. If the price was agreeable, Plaintiff would accept the freight assignment in Turlock, CA.
15 20. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten
16 Transport.
17 21. Plaintiffs did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the contract required of
18 them. They successfully and timely transported all the freight.
19 22. Maiten Transport failed to pay Plaintiffs for their freight transportation services.
20 23. Plaintiffs were harmed in that they performed services for which they were not paid.
21 24. Marten Transport’s breach of the contracts was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’
22 harm.
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Common Counts: Goods and Services Rendered as to ALL DEFENDANTS)
25 25. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1
through 24 above as though fully set forth herein.
26 26. Defendants requested that Plaintiffs, through words and conduct, perform freight
27 transponation services for them.
28 27. Plaintiffs are in the freight transport business.
-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28. Marten Transport is an authorized freight broker under the United States Department of
Transport.
29. Marten Transport would broker the loads to Plaintiffs.
3 0. Marten Transport would contact Plaintiff in Turlock, CA with a possible freight load and a
price. If the price was agreeable, Plaintiff would accept the freight assignment in Turlock, CA.
31. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten
Transport.
32. Plaintiffs performed freight transportations services for Defendants.
33. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ freight transportation services.
10 34. The reasonable outstanding value of the services provided is approximately $3 9,954.00.
11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12 (Common Counts: Account Stated as to ALL DEFENDANTS)
13 35. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1
through 34 above as though fully set forth herein.
14 36. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten
15 Transport.
16 37. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ freight transportation services.
17 38. The reasonable outstanding value of the services provided is approximately $3 9,954.00.
18 39. Defendant, through words and conduct, agreed it owes $39,954.00 and agreed to pay that
19 amount.
20 40. Defendant has not paid the $3 9,954.00 owed to Plaintiffs.
21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Common Counts: Open Book Account as to ALL DEFENDANTS)
23 41 . Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1
through 40 above as though fully set forth herein.
24 42. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten
25 Transport.
26 43. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ freight transportation services.
27 44. Plaintiff, in the regular course of business, kept an electronic account of the debits and
28 credits involved in its transaction with Defendant.
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
45. Defendant owes $39,954.00 on the account.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREF ORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
l. For damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown, but in
excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court;
2. For compensatory damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown;
For incidental damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown;
For consequential damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown;
For prejudgment interest for any judgment received against any Defendant;
10 For costs of suit herein incurred against all Defendants;
11 For attorney’s pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.5; and
12 For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
13
14 DATED: March 26, 2021 SOD AW GROUP
15
16 By:
SODHI
17 A ET SINGH BIRRING
Attorney for Plaintiffs
18 PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR TRANS INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
Electronically Filed 3/26/2021 3:35 PM Superior Court of California Jakrun S. Sodhi (State Bar No. 200851) County of Stanislaus Ameet S. Birring (State Bar N0. 297118) Clerk of the Court SODI-II LAW GROUP By: Angela Mesa, Deputy 1301 K Street, Suite F Modesto, CA 95354 Telephone: 209.900.8200 $435 PAID Facsimile: 209.900.8205 Ameet@sodhilawgroup.com Jak@sodhjlawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR TRANS IN C. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR Case No.: CV-21-001662 TRANS INC., 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 MARTEN TRANSPORT LOGISTICS, LLC, 14 a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 COMES NOW Plaintiffs, PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR TRANS INC., alleging, against 19 Defendants as follows: 20 FACTS 21 1. Plaintiff, PATTAR TRANSPORT is a California partnership with its principal office in 22 Stanislaus County, State of Califomia. 23 2. Plaintiff, PATTAR TRANS INC. is a California corporation with its principal office in 24 Stanislaus County, State of California. 25 3. MARTEN TRANSPORT LOGISTICS, LLC, (“Marten Transport” or “Defendant”) is a 26 Wisconsin limited liability company conducting continuous and systemic business throughout California 27 so that it has purposefully availed itself to the privileges of conducting business in California. 28 -1- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Tr: assignmmmge Speiller, Stacy Dept. 22 Depart-an .malpupusesmmmgmal 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that those defendants sued herein as DOES lthrough 100, inclusive, are in some way responsible for the damages and/or events referred to in this Complaint, either through his/her/its own conduct, or vicariously through the conduct of others and each of said DOE defendants proximately and legally caused the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as herein alleged. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when the same have been ascertained. 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, that at all times herein alleged, 10 defendants at some or all times acted by and through their various principals, associates, employees, 11 partners, agents, officers, or servants, and that each and every defendant was the principal, agent, servant, 12 employee, partner, joint venture, predecessor, and/or successor in interest of each and every remaining 13 defendant, and that in doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein was acting within the course and 14 scope of such agency, servitude, employment, partnership, joint venture, and as predecessor and/or 15 successor in interest, and with the express and/or implied knowledge and consent of each and every 16 remaining defendant. 17 6. This Court is the proper court in which to bring this action because the underlying 18 contracts were executed and performed within its jurisdiction and the breach of the contracts occurred 19 within its jurisdiction. 20 7. Plaintiffs are in the business of freight transportation. 21 8. Marten Transport is an authorized freight broker under the United States Department of 22 Transport. 23 9. Marten Transport would broker the loads to Plaintiffs. 24 10. Marten Transport would contact Plaintiff in Turlock, CA with a possible freight load and a 25 price. If the price was agreeable, Plaintiff would accept the freight assignment in Turlock, CA. 26 11. ln early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten 27 Transport. 28 12. Plaintiffs invoiced Marten Transport for the loads. -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13. To date, Plaintiffs have not been paid for freight transpofiation services rendered. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) 14. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 13 above as though fully set forth herein. 15. Plaintiffs are in the freight transpo1t business. 16. Marten T1‘anspo1t is an authorized freight broker under the United States Department of Transport. 17. Maiten Transport would broker the loads to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would transport the loads per Malten Transport’s instructions. 10 18. There was previously a written contract between Plaintiffs’ predecessor~in-interest and 11 Defendant. However, that contract expired, and the paities carried on the relationship in an implied—in- 12 fact manner. 13 19. Marten Transport would contact Plaintiff in Turlock, CA with a possible freight load and a 14 price. If the price was agreeable, Plaintiff would accept the freight assignment in Turlock, CA. 15 20. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten 16 Transport. 17 21. Plaintiffs did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the contract required of 18 them. They successfully and timely transported all the freight. 19 22. Maiten Transport failed to pay Plaintiffs for their freight transportation services. 20 23. Plaintiffs were harmed in that they performed services for which they were not paid. 21 24. Marten Transport’s breach of the contracts was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ 22 harm. 23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Common Counts: Goods and Services Rendered as to ALL DEFENDANTS) 25 25. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 24 above as though fully set forth herein. 26 26. Defendants requested that Plaintiffs, through words and conduct, perform freight 27 transponation services for them. 28 27. Plaintiffs are in the freight transport business. -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 28. Marten Transport is an authorized freight broker under the United States Department of Transport. 29. Marten Transport would broker the loads to Plaintiffs. 3 0. Marten Transport would contact Plaintiff in Turlock, CA with a possible freight load and a price. If the price was agreeable, Plaintiff would accept the freight assignment in Turlock, CA. 31. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten Transport. 32. Plaintiffs performed freight transportations services for Defendants. 33. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ freight transportation services. 10 34. The reasonable outstanding value of the services provided is approximately $3 9,954.00. 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 12 (Common Counts: Account Stated as to ALL DEFENDANTS) 13 35. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 34 above as though fully set forth herein. 14 36. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten 15 Transport. 16 37. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ freight transportation services. 17 38. The reasonable outstanding value of the services provided is approximately $3 9,954.00. 18 39. Defendant, through words and conduct, agreed it owes $39,954.00 and agreed to pay that 19 amount. 20 40. Defendant has not paid the $3 9,954.00 owed to Plaintiffs. 21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (Common Counts: Open Book Account as to ALL DEFENDANTS) 23 41 . Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 40 above as though fully set forth herein. 24 42. In early 2020, Plaintiffs transported approximately 35 loads of freight for Marten 25 Transport. 26 43. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ freight transportation services. 27 44. Plaintiff, in the regular course of business, kept an electronic account of the debits and 28 credits involved in its transaction with Defendant. -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 45. Defendant owes $39,954.00 on the account. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREF ORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: l. For damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown, but in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court; 2. For compensatory damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown; For incidental damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown; For consequential damages against all Defendants in an amount yet unknown; For prejudgment interest for any judgment received against any Defendant; 10 For costs of suit herein incurred against all Defendants; 11 For attorney’s pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.5; and 12 For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. 13 14 DATED: March 26, 2021 SOD AW GROUP 15 16 By: SODHI 17 A ET SINGH BIRRING Attorney for Plaintiffs 18 PATTAR TRANSPORT and PATTAR TRANS INC. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES