DG Premium Brands LLC v. Onestop (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC, et al.
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Branded Online, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff DG Premium Brands LLC
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff, which designs and sells clothing, contracted with Onestop for it to collect Plaintiff’s online sales revenue, which Onestop did not remit to Plaintiff. A separate action about that is currently in arbitration. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants orchestrated a series of interlocking transactions after Onestop’s assets were assigned for the benefit of its creditors, through which Defendant GBG ended up with priority over the assignment estate, from which Plaintiff has not received any of the over $2 million Onestop collected on its behalf.
Defendant Branded Online, Inc. demurs to the third cause of action of the complaint, which is the only one alleged against it.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Branded Online, Inc.’
Hearing Date
November 26, 2019
Type
Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/ breach of contract) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
DG Premium Brands LLC v. Onestop (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC, et al.
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Branded Online, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff DG Premium Brands LLC
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff, which designs and sells clothing, contracted with Onestop for it to collect Plaintiff’s online sales revenue, which Onestop did not remit to Plaintiff. A separate action about that is currently in arbitration. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants orchestrated a series of interlocking transactions after Onestop’s assets were assigned for the benefit of its creditors, through which Defendant GBG ended up with priority over the assignment estate, from which Plaintiff has not received any of the over $2 million Onestop collected on its behalf.
Defendant Branded Online, Inc. demurs to the third cause of action of the complaint, which is the only one alleged against it.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Branded Online, Inc.’