Results ByIQ, LLC v. Fanning et al
Filing
82
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 60 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 78 Motion to Continue (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
RESULTS BYIQ LLC,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15
NETCAPITAL.COM LLC, NETWIRE INC.,
NETMOVIES INC., and DOES 1-20,
inclusive,
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. C 11-0550-SC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND MOTION TO CONTINUE
TRIAL
18
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Results ByIQ LLC ("Results ByIQ") brings this action
21
against Defendants NetCapital.com LLC, Netwire Inc., and Netmovies
22
Inc. (collectively "Defendants") for breach of contract and fraud
23
in the inducement, among other things.
24
The crux of Results ByIQ's Amended Complaint is that Results ByIQ
25
performed work for Defendants pursuant to a written agreement and
26
was never compensated for that work.
27
summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Results ByIQ lacks
28
standing to bring this action and (2) Results ByIQ's claims are
ECF No. 4 ("Am. Compl.").
Defendants now move for
1
time-barred.
ECF No. 61 ("MSJ").
The Motion is fully briefed, ECF
2
Nos. 72 ("Opp'n"), 76 ("Reply"), and appropriate for determination
3
without oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
4
Court is Defendants' motion to continue the trial in this matter
5
from June 10, 2013 to sometime in July 2013.
6
Continue ("MTC")).
7
are DENIED.
Also before the
ECF No. 78 (Motion to
For the reasons set forth below, both motions
8
9
II.
Plaintiff Results ByIQ alleges that non-party ByIQ LLC
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
BACKGROUND
11
("ByIQ") entered into a Consulting Agreement with Defendants
12
NetCapital.com LLC, Netwire Inc., and NetMovies Inc. in or around
13
October 25, 2006.
14
agreement on behalf of ByIQ, and John Fanning signed on behalf of
15
NetCapital.com.
16
ByIQ allegedly performed work pursuant to the Consulting Agreement.
17
Id. ¶¶ 21-24.
Am. Compl. ¶ 19.1
Id. Ex. B.
Paul Charlton signed the
Between October 2006 and early 2008,
On November 30, 2006, ByIQ submitted an invoice to
18
19
"NetCapital, LLC" for $10,500, which was due on that same date.
20
Id. Ex. D.
21
chief operating officer allegedly acknowledged and affirmed
22
Defendants' outstanding debt for services provided by ByIQ and
23
requested that ByIQ perform additional services.
24
In December 2010, Mr. Charlton emailed Mr. Fanning to request that
In November 2007 and December 2008, Mr. Fanning and his
Id. ¶¶ 22, 28.
25
26
27
28
1
Though this is a motion for summary judgment, the parties briefed
it as if it were a motion for judgment on the pleadings. For
example, Defendants' statement of facts, ECF No. 62, primarily
references Results ByIQ's original complaint and the documents
attached thereto.
2
1
Defendants pay their outstanding bills.
2
responded: "This is a netmovies bill.
3
be handled."
4
emailed Mr. Fanning to demand payment.
5
alleges that Mr. Fanning did not respond.
Id. Ex. I.
Id. Ex. H.
Mr. Fanning
I am not sure how this would
In January 2011, Mr. Charlton again
Id. Ex. K.
Results ByIQ
Id. ¶¶ 35-36.
6
In a declaration filed with the Court, Mr. Charlton claims
7
that he and several other members of ByIQ elected to cash out their
8
interests in ByIQ and wind down the business in 2009 or 2010.
9
No. 74 ("Charlton Decl.") ¶ 5.
ECF
Mr. Charlton also claims that he
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
formed Plaintiff Results ByIQ in or around 2010 and that Results
11
ByIQ became the successor-in-interest to ByIQ and the assignee of
12
ByIQ's claims and causes of action.
13
purportedly memorialized in a written agreement, but Mr. Charlton
14
has yet to locate a copy of that agreement.
15
Id. ¶ 6.
This transaction was
Charlton Decl. ¶ 6.
Results ByIQ filed this action on February 7, 2011 and amended
16
its Complaint three days later.
The Amended Complaint asserts
17
causes of action for (1) violation of the Racketeer and Corrupt
18
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964; (2) fraud in the inducement;
19
(3) fraudulent conveyance; (4) breach of contract; (5) account
20
stated; and (6) open book account.
21
22
III. LEGAL STANDARD
23
Entry of summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that
24
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
25
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
26
56(a).
27
require a directed verdict for the moving party.
28
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Summary judgment should be granted if the evidence would
3
Anderson v.
Thus, "Rule 56[]
1
mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who
2
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
3
element essential to that party's case, and on which that party
4
will bear the burden of proof at trial."
5
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
6
believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
7
favor."
8
of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position
9
will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
"The evidence of the nonmovant is to be
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
However, "[t]he mere existence
could reasonably find for the plaintiff."
Id. at 252.
11
12
IV.
DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss on standing and statute of
13
14
limitations grounds.2
15
below.
16
continue the trial.
The Court addresses each of these arguments
Additionally, the Court addresses Defendants' motion to
17
A.
18
Defendants argue that Results ByIQ lacks standing because it
Standing
19
is not the real party in interest to this suit.
20
Specifically, Defendants contend that all of Results ByIQ's claims
21
are predicated on injuries to ByIQ.
22
that it has standing as successor-in-interest to ByIQ and assignee
23
of ByIQ's claims and causes of action.
24
has filed a declaration with the Court asserting that Results ByIQ
25
2
26
27
28
Id.
MSJ at 2-3.
Results ByIQ responds
Opp'n at 4.
Mr. Charlton
Defendants also move to dismiss Results ByIQ's wire fraud claim
on the ground that 18 U.S.C. § 1343 does not grant a private right
of action. The fundamental flaw in this argument is that Results
ByIQ is no longer asserting a claim for wire fraud. The claim was
asserted in Results ByIQ's original complaint, but abandoned when
the complaint was amended. Compare ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") with Am.
Compl.
4
1
is ByIQ's successor-in-interest, but Results ByIQ has yet to
2
produce the legal document memorializing this arrangement.
3
Defendants assert that Results ByIQ's inability to produce this
4
document warrants summary judgment since it amounts to a complete
5
failure of proof concerning an essential element of Results ByIQ's
6
case.
7
Reply at 4.
In the absence of a legal document memorializing the
8
assignment of ByIQ's rights, the Court is left with Mr. Fanning's
9
representations concerning the existence and terms of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
assignment.
11
without making a credibility determination, which would be
12
inappropriate at this state of the litigation.
13
provides that the Court may deny a motion for judgment if a
14
nonmovant shows, "for specified reasons, that it cannot present
15
facts essential to justify its opposition."
16
of Results ByIQ's counsel indicates that Defendants first raised
17
the issue of Results ByIQ's standing in the instant motion and that
18
no discovery has been taken on this matter.
19
("Battista Decl.") ¶¶ 4-5.
20
21
The Court cannot dismiss Mr. Fanning's declaration
Further, Rule 56(d)
Here, the declaration
See ECF No. 73
Accordingly, the Court declines to grant summary judgment on
standing grounds.
22
B.
Statute of Limitations
23
Under California law, the statute of limitations for an
24
action upon any contract and an action for relief on the ground of
25
fraud are four years and three years, respectively.
26
Proc. Code § 337, 338(d).
27
contract claims are time-barred because Results ByIQ's first
28
invoice was due on November 30, 2006 and this action was not filed
Cal. Civ.
Defendants argue that Results ByIQ's
5
1
until February 7, 2011.
MSJ at 4.
Defendants also contend that
2
Results ByIQ's claim for fraud in the inducement is time-barred
3
because it accrued on October 25, 2006, the date on which ByIQ and
4
Defendants entered into the Consulting Agreement.3
Id. at 4-5.
With respect to the contract claims, Results ByIQ responds
5
6
that triable issues of fact exist as to when the November 30, 2006
7
invoice was received by Defendants and when payment was expected.
8
Opp'n at 5.
9
U.S. Mail on November 30, 2006, meaning that Defendants would have
Results ByIQ points out that the invoice was sent by
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
received it sometime after the November 30, 2006 due date.
Id.
11
(citing Battista Decl. Ex. 2 at 15-16).
12
argues that no reasonable business person expects that an invoice
13
will be paid the instant that it is received.
Results ByIQ further
Id.
14
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 337, the
15
statute of limitations for an action to recover on an "account
16
stated" based on an account of more than one item does not begin to
17
run until the date of the last item.
18
limitations for a "book account" begins as of the last entry of the
19
book account.4
20
971-72 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
21
indefinitely for the purposes of calculating the statute of
22
limitations.
Likewise, the statute of
R.N.C. Inc. v. Tsegeletos, 231 Cal. App. 3d 967,
Id. at 972.
A book account does not remain open
"[T]he 'open' or 'closed' nature of a
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Although Defendants suggest that all of Results ByIQ's fraud
claims are time-barred, they do not directly address Results ByIQ's
claim for fraudulent conveyance. Accordingly, the Court declines
to find that the fraudulent conveyance claim is time-barred.
4
A book account is defined as "a detailed statement which
constitutes the principal record of one or more transactions
between a debtor and a creditor arising out of a contract or some
fiduciary relation . . . [that] is kept in a reasonably permanent
form and manner." Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337a.
6
1
book account turns not on the account balance per se, but on the
2
parties' expectations of possible future transactions between them
3
[on that account]."
4
3d 771, 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
5
the parties intend that the individual items of the account shall
6
not be considered independently, but as a connected series of
7
transactions, . . . and where . . . there is but one single and
8
indivisible liability."
9
Accounting, § 4 at 373-74).
Id. (quoting Gross v. Recabaren, 206 Cal. App.
"An open account results where
Id. (quoting 1 Am. Jur. 2d Accounts and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
In this case, the Court cannot find that Results ByIQ's
11
contract claims are time-barred based on the evidence before it.
12
As an initial matter, Defendants have failed to address whether
13
their account with ByIQ remained open or closed after November 30,
14
2006, and thus have failed to carry their burden.
15
facts before the Court suggest that the account remained open well
16
after November 30, 2006.
17
Complaint, which Defendants do not appear to dispute, ByIQ
18
continued to render services under the Consulting Agreement through
19
sometime in early 2008.
20
December 2008, Defendants and ByIQ had conversations about ByIQ
21
performing additional work for Defendants.
22
Further, the
According to facts alleged in the
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21-24.
Further, as late as
See id. ¶ 29.
As to the fraud in the inducement claim, Results ByIQ argues
23
that it did not discover the fraud until at least December 2010.
24
Results ByIQ points out that it has alleged that Defendants
25
acknowledged their debt in November 2007 and December 2008 and
26
requested additional service be performed under the Consulting
27
Agreement.
28
indication that Defendants had no intention of paying their bills
Opp'n at 7.
Results ByIQ further argues that the first
7
1
came on December 7, 2010, when Mr. Fanning responded to Mr.
2
Charlton's demand for payment by saying: "This is a netmovies bill.
3
I am not sure how this would be handled."
Id.
Under California law, the discovery rule "postpones accrual of
4
5
a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to
6
discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least
7
suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its
8
elements."
9
1999).
Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383, 389 (Cal.
A plaintiff has reason to discover when he has "notice or
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on
11
inquiry."
12
argue that, based on the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint,
13
Results ByIQ should have discovered the alleged fraud by December
14
2007.
15
appear to be relying on Results ByIQ's allegation that it had
16
provided $41,550 in services by December 2007.
17
Id. at 398 (internal quotations omitted).
Reply at 9.
Defendants
It is not altogether clear why, but Defendants
The Court finds that the undisputed evidence does not support
18
summary judgment on Results ByIQ's fraud in the inducement claim.
19
In fact, there is little evidence before the Court other than
20
Results ByIQ's own pleading.
21
repeatedly demanded payment from Defendants from November 2006
22
through January 2011 and that, during this period, Defendants never
23
denied their payment obligations or otherwise indicated that they
24
would refuse to pay.
25
these facts.
26
person would have discovered that Defendants had no intention of
27
fulfilling their alleged obligations is matter of fact best left to
28
the jury.
That pleading suggests that ByIQ
Defendants do not appear to dispute any of
In this case, determining exactly when a reasonable
8
For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in Section IV.B,
1
2
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
3
C.
Motion to Continue the Trial
4
The trial in this matter is currently set for June 10, 2013.
5
On May 1, 2013, Defendants moved to continue the trial to sometime
6
in July.
Results ByIQ has opposed the motion.
ECF No. 80.
7
Defendants argue that a continuance is warranted because
8
justice requires that they be given an opportunity to conduct
9
discovery on the assignment agreement discussed in Section IV.A,
MTC at 5-6.
However, it is unclear why Defendants have
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
supra.
11
waited until now to conduct discovery on this purportedly central
12
issue.
13
to be deposed by Results ByIQ until June because his home city of
14
Boston is on "lockdown."
15
recent tragedy in Boston, the Court takes judicial notice of the
16
fact that Boston has not been on lockdown for some time.
17
event, Results ByIQ has indicated that it is prepared to move
18
forward with the trial as scheduled.
19
that their new counsel, Maria Crimi Speth, is unavailable due to
20
scheduling conflicts.
21
Speth is not counsel of record in this action, is not admitted to
22
practice law in California, and has yet to file an application for
23
pro hac vice admission.
24
Defendants' current counsel is unavailable for trial or intends to
25
withdraw as counsel of record.5
Defendants also argue that Mr. Fanning will be unavailable
Id. at 3-4.
MTC at 3.
While sensitive to the
In any
Finally, Defendants contend
As Results ByIQ points out, Ms.
Further, there is no indication that
26
27
28
5
Defendants also contend that there should be more time between
the hearing on their motion for summary judgment and the due date
for the parties' pre-trial briefs. This argument is also
unpersuasive. Defendants have been aware of the trial date (and
9
In sum, the motion to continue the trial is DENIED.
1
This case
2
has been pending before the Court since February 7, 2011, and the
3
current trial date has been set since August 31, 2012.
4
The Court is not inclined to grant a continuance at this late date.
ECF No. 53.
5
6
V.
CONCLUSION
7
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants NetCapital.Com LLC,
8
Netwire Inc., and Netmovies Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is
9
DENIED.
Defendants' motion to continue the trial is also DENIED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
Dated:
May 7, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the possibility of required pre-trial filings) for several months
and, in spite of this, chose to file their motion for summary
judgment after the last day for motions to be filed in this matter.
See ECF No. 64.
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?