Wacker v. Hammerking Prods. Inc.

608 F.Supp.3d 947

Alex WACKER, an individual, Plaintiff,

v.HAMMERKING PRODUCTIONS INC. d/b/a Ultra4 Racing, a California corporation, Defendant.

Case No. 5:21-cv-00021-JWH-SP

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed June 20, 2022

Matt R. Pickelman, Pro Hac Vice, Quilling Selander Lownds Winslett and Moser PC, Dallas, TX, GailAnn Y. Stargardter, Lehavi Stargardter LLP, Orange, CA, for Plaintiff.

Beau Daniel Weiner, Mountain Law Group, PC, Folsom, CA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 30] AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [ECF No. 33]

John W. Holcomb, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Can legal shenanigans¹ propel an aggrieved off-road race car driver from fourteenth place to first place? Under the circumstances of this case, they can.

The Court resolves that question in the procedural context of two competing motions that rely on the same set of facts. The first is the motion of Plaintiff Alex Wacker for partial summary judgment.² The second is the motion of Defendant Hammerking Productions Inc. for judgment on the pleadings.³ After considering the papers filed in support and in opposition,⁴ as well as the parties’ arguments at the hearing on the motions, the Court orders that Wacker's Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part , as set forth herein, and Hammerking's Rule 12(c) Motion is DENIED .

I. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises out of Hammerking's alleged failure to comply with its own rules that govern a series of off-road automobile races, beginning with the "King of Hammers" race and ending with the crowning of a National Champion. Alex Wacker, a driver who competed in the 2019 season, finished in fourteenth place overall, but, based upon the rules that Hammerking promulgated for its racing series, Wacker believes that he should be crowned National Champion.⁵ Wacker turns to this Court for relief.

Hammerking organizes the Ultra4 Racing Series. It holds its off-road races from February through October, in locations across the United States.⁶ Those races require drivers to use four-wheel-drive vehicles.⁷ According to the parties, the series always begins with the "King of the Hammers" race and ends in a National Championship.⁸ Hammerking also offers regional races categorized into an "East Coast" sub-series and a "West Coast" sub-series.⁹ There are a total of eight races in which drivers can earn points.¹⁰ At the end of the season, Hammerking declares champions of the East Coast and West Coast sub-series, as well as a National Champion—the "pinnacle achievement" of the Ultra4 Racing Series.¹¹ The National, East Coast, and West Coast champions are determined by tallying points earned from a contestant's placement in various races.¹² In short, the driver with the most points wins.

During the 2019 season, the governing rule book was the 2019 Ultra4 Racing Rulebook v. 4.4.2., published by Hammerking on December 1, 2018.¹³ Before the season began, Wacker read the rulebook and the Ultra Point Description on the Ultra4 Racing website.¹⁴ Wacker cites one rule in particular in support of his argument here, which appears under the heading "9.2 Event Participants" and the subheading "9.2.1 Registration."¹⁵ That rule states:

1) An entrant number shall be assigned to the Driver of Record for the entire year. The Driver of Record must enter all points events to become a champion. The points stay with the Driver of Record and the entrant number for the entire year. Driver of Record must be a registered competitor in every event and must start or finish every event in a competing race vehicle bearing his/her assigned entrant number.¹⁶

In reliance on that rule, Wacker claims that he made the decision to compete in every race that season.¹⁷

Also germane to this dispute is a section of Hammerking's website, titled the Ultra4 Series Points Description.¹⁸ It provides in relevant part:

How champions are determined:

The East and West Coast Series Champions are determined by the driver with the most points from all 3 regional races in their respective series. A driver cannot combine East and West races for these Championships.

The Nitto National Champion is the [sic ] determined by the driver with the most points from KOH, their top 3 regional races, and the National Championship. A driver can combine East and West races for this Championship.

Per the rulebook, a driver must compete in all respective races to be eligible for the championship.¹⁹

Of the 140 racers who competed during the 2019 season, only Wacker and one other driver competed in every race.²⁰ Of those two drivers, Wacker earned more points.²¹ Shortly after he finished the national championship race on October 19, 2019,²² Wacker learned that he came in fourteenth place overall, despite his expectations that he would win the National Championship.²³

Three days later, Wacker began to exchange text messages with Ultra4's Race Director, non-party JT Taylor. At first, the communications concerned Wacker's receipt of the wrong trophy.²⁴ Then, on October 31, Wacker confronted Taylor specifically about Rule 9.2.1.²⁵ Taylor responded:

We haven't followed that rule ever. Didn't even know it existed till [sic ] it was recently brought up. It's getting changed. I wish I had seen it before. I'm sorry. I shoulda [sic ] caught it.²⁶

Taylor then escalated the issue to Hammerking's President and CEO, non-party David Cole.²⁷ On November 15, Taylor texted the following message to Wacker:

Going off past precedent and the way the rule was intended, the championship stays as it is. I'm sorry if you interpreted it differently.²⁸

Cole then began to communicate with Wacker.²⁹ On December 2, Wacker texted Cole screenshots of Wacker's conversation with Taylor.³⁰ Around that time, Cole and Wacker apparently spoke over the phone, and the conversation did not go well. Wacker alleges—and Cole admits—that Cole called Wacker a "f**king idiot" and told Wacker that his interpretation of the rules was "retarded."³¹

Wacker responded by filing a lawsuit in Texas state court on February 24, 2020.³² Hammerking raised a personal jurisdiction defense,³³ which led Wacker to file a Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice, thereby voluntarily dismissing that Texas case.³⁴

On January 6, 2021, Wacker filed a Complaint in this Court asserting five claims for relief:

• a claim for declaratory judgment that Wacker is the 2019 Ultra4 Race Champion pursuant to the Ultra4 Rulebook;

• breach of contract;

• a claim for specific performance to declare Wacker the 2019 Ultra4 Race Champion pursuant to the Ultra4 Rulebook;

• breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and

• negligent misrepresentation.³⁵

A year later, in January 2022, Wacker moved for summary judgment on his second, third, and fifth claims for relief.³⁶ A week after that, Hammerking moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to all five of Wacker's claims.³⁷

The Court conducted a hearing on both motions in March 2022. During that hearing, the Court questioned whether the amount in controversy meets the statutory threshold, so it requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding subject-matter jurisdiction.³⁸ See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Judgment on the Pleadings

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed, but before trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion under Rule 12(c) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. 637 F.3d 1047, 1063 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011). The analysis is "substantially identical" to that of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) : a court must determine whether, crediting the factual allegations as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Chavez v. United States , 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). The principal difference between the two motions is the timing of the filing. See Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc. , 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). Under both standards, a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. In other words, the complaint must contain "well-pleaded facts" from which the Court can "infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

B. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment (or partial summary judgment) is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Barlow v. Ground , 943 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1991). However, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original). The substantive law determines the facts that are material. See id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. Factual disputes that are "irrelevant or unnecessary" are not counted. Id. A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.

Under that standard, the moving party has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings and the record that it believes demonstrate the absence of an issue of material...