FAST POST (SHANGHAI) LOGISTICS CO, LTD. v. B612 TIMA INC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.

On or about February 4, 2023, Best Bay’s Logistics Coordinator agreed to transport the shipment, and the drivers Best Bay hired loaded the shipment. (SACC ¶¶7-8.) B612, however, was informed that the Shipment never arrived because Best Bay lost track of the load and control of its hired drivers, and the entire Shipment was either lost or stolen. (SACC ¶11.)

Page | 1

On April 8, 20261, Best Bay filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that both Fast Post and B612’s claims have already been adjudicated in federal court.

On April 16, Fast Post filed an opposition, arguing that 1) the claims brought here are different and distinct from any brought in the federal action, and 2) that either way, Best Bay cannot file a motion as to Fast Post’s complaint because it is only a party to B612’s cross-complaint.

B612 filed a separate opposition, arguing that Fast Post should not have filed its complaint against it, but because it did, any new liability would be due to Best Bay’s alleged failures.

On April 22, Best Bay filed its reply.

DISCUSSION

I. Statement of the Law.

a. Legal Standard - Motion for Judgment on the Pleading

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made by any party to the action after the time to demurrer has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., §438, subds. (b)(1) and (f); Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 548.)

If the moving party is the plaintiff, then a motion for judgment on the pleadings can only be made if “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; see also Code Civ. Proc., §438, subd. (d).)

“As with a demurrer, ‘[t]he grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the complaint or from a matter of which the court may take judicial notice.’” (Lee v. Kotyluk (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 719, 728, citing to Eckler v. Neutrogena Corp. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 433, 439.)

Although the trial court must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, it “does not consider conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or facts that are judicially noticed.” (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219.)

Similar to a demurrer, Code of Civil Procedure, section 439 requires the moving party to “meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the opposing party “for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 439.)

Section 439, however, does not apply to “[a] proceeding in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (d)(2).)

A trial court's decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed de novo. (Lee v. Kotyluk, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 728.)

II. Analysis.

a. Judicial Notice.

As with a demurrer, “the court may consider matters which may be judicially noticed, including court records.” (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 224.)

Here, Best Bay requests judicial notice as to twelve separate pleadings/filings in Case No. 5:23-cv-01628-JGB- DTB, a federal action in the Central District of California. Such records are eligible for judicial notice pursuant to California Code of Evidence section 452, subdivision (d), and as such, Best Bay’s request for judicial notice is granted.

1 The motion was previously filed on February 13, 2026, but was refiled and re-calendared.

Page | 2

b. Summary of Judicially Noticed Documents.

Best Bay’s primary argument is that the issues before the Court have already been litigated in federal Court such that both complaints, Fast Post’s complaint against B612 and B612’s crosscomplaint against Best Bay should not move forward.

Per the documents put forward by Best Bay, Fast Post filed a complaint in San Bernardino Superior Court (case number CIVSB2315023) against B612 and Best Bay, based on the same set of facts, that was then removed to federal court.

Best Bay and B612 subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, which were then granted.

c. Best Bay’s Motion Against Fast Post.

Regardless of the argument before the Court, Best Bay cannot successfully bring a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the underlying complaint brought by Fast Post because Best Bay is not a party to that underlying complaint.

The underlying complaint in this current action is only brought by Fast Post against B612, and as such, Best Bay cannot bring a motion for judgment on the pleadings against Fast Post’s complaint.

d. Motion Against B612’s Cross-Complaint.

i. Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) and Issue Preclusion.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a general demurrer, and the trial court treats the pleadings as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, including evidence outside the pleadings which the trial court considered without objection. (Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 407, 415.)

“‘Res judicata’ describes the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.)

“Res judicata bars a subsequent claim when ‘(1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding.’ [Citation.] Upon satisfaction of these conditions, claim preclusion bars ‘not only ... issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated.’” (Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at 415-416, quoting Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 226.)

Here, based on the judicially noticed documents, Fast Post brought the same four claims against B612 and Best Bay in the previous action, and the claims were removed to federal court.

In this action, Fast Post named both B612 and Best Bay as defendants, and B612 then filed a crosscomplaint against Best Bay for five causes of action, including both negligent hiring and breach of contract. (Ex. 9.)

Best Bay then filed a motion to dismiss B612’s cross-complaint, but importantly, the motion to dismiss was never heard on the merits, with the parties instead signing a stipulation for B612 to dismiss the federal cross-complaint against Best Bay without prejudice.

As stated by the California Supreme Court, “for purposes of applying the doctrine of res judicata, however, a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action.” (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 793 (emphasis added).)

Here, we have no such final judgment because the dismissal is without prejudice.

Similarly, even though Best Bay argues issue preclusion in the alternative to res judicata, it also requires a final judgment.

As stated by the California Supreme Court, “[i]ssue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action. [Citation.] Under issue preclusion, the prior

Page | 3

judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 (emphasis in original).)

As such, even though the issues are the same, and the parties are the same, and Fast Post may have reached a final judgment with B612, B612 did not reach a final judgment with Best Bay.

Thus, the cross-complaint against Best Bay cannot be dismissed based on the theories of issue or claim preclusion.

ii. Federal Preemption.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings, similar to a “demurrer[,] is an appropriate vehicle to secure a dismissal of a state law action based on federal law preemption.” (Ball v. Gte Mobilnet (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 529, 535.)

Best Bay argues that the cross-claims against it are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”).

The FAAAA’s express preemption provision provides, in relevant part, that “States may not enact or enforce a law . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . ., broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).)

The FAAAA, however, also contains a caveat, stating that the preemption “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” (49 U.S.C. § 14501, subd. (c)(2)(A).)

In the SACC, B612 alleges Best Bay is a “broker” used to complete “the safe and competent transport of the Shipment from B612’s warehouse in Ontario, California to Hoymiles in Plano Texas.” (SACC ¶6.)

As such, based on B612’s own allegations, Best Bay is a broker and its claims against Best Bay may be preempted by the FAAAA, unless an exception applies.

As to B612’s negligent hiring claim, Best Bay cites to district court cases stating that negligent claims are preempted under the FAAAA.

Although the Ninth Circuit has held that the safety regulatory authority of a State can encompasses common-law tort claims, such that preemption would not apply, (Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 976 F.3d 1016, 1026), it has also limited that holding, concluding that “a negligence claim that seeks to hold a broker (or motor carrier) liable at the point at which it provides a service to its customers is directly (and significantly) related to rates, routes or services, and thus preempted.” (California Trucking Assn. v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2020) 996 F.3d 644, 657.)

That is the situation here; B612 is seeking to hold Best Bay liable for the service it was meant to provide to B612, and thus its negligence claim is preempted.

It’s breach of contract claim, however, is not. “[O]rdinarily, breach of contract claims are not considered preempted by the FAAAA”. (Suzuyo Am., Inc. v. Year-Round Enters., Inc. (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2025, No. 2:24-cv-07689-CAS-SSCx) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137630, at *17-182; see also Custom Stud, Inc. v. Meadow Lark Agency, Inc. (D. Minn. 2021) 566 F. Supp. 3d 950, 954, stating that “[w]hile the FAAAA broadly preempts state laws that would regulate interstate transportation of goods, it does not preempt breach of contract claims limited to ‘the parties’ bargain, with no enlargement or enhancement based on state laws or policies external to the agreement,’” quoting Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens (1995) 513 U.S. 219, 233.)

Therefore, the Court grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to B612’s negligent hiring claim only, because it preempted by the FAAAA.

The Court does grant the motion regarding the breach of contract claim to remain.

2 Unpublished federal district court decisions are “citable notwithstanding California Rules of Court rule 977, which only bars citation of unpublished California opinions. Therefore, [unpublished federal district court decisions] are citable as persuasive, although not precedential, authority.” (City of Hawthorne ex rel. Wohlner v. H&C Disposal Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1668, 1678, fn. 5 (emphasis in original).)

Page | 4

RULING

The Court rules as follows:

1. Grants Best Bay’s request for judicial notice;

2. Grants Best Bay’s motion for judgment on the pleadings only as to B612’s negligent hiring claim, finding it preempted by the FAAAA;

3. Denies the motion as to B612’s breach of contract claim;

4. Orders Best Bay, as the prevailing party, to give formal notice of the Court’s ruling.

Dated: April 26, 2026

____________________________ Judge Nicole Quintana Winter

Page | 5