SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

ALORICA INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FORTINET INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2019-1-CV-344971

TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR COMPLEXITY DETERMINATION

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on August 16, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION
II.
According to the allegations of the Complaint, filed on March 21, 2019, plaintiff Alorica, Inc. and defendant Fortinet, Inc. are both Delaware corporations. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-2.) Alorica is one of the leading providers of outsourced communication solutions, averaging over 600 million customer interactions per year. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Fortinet is a multinational corporation that develops and markets hardware, software, and services for secure computer networking, including firewalls, switches, and routers. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

In 2017, Alorica determined it needed to upgrade its wide are network (WAN) that connects Alorica’s data centers and contact centers. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Alorica solicited bids and ultimately purchased thousands of Fortinet products in an amount exceeding $10 million. (Id. at ¶¶ 9 and 15.) Alorica also purchased enhanced support and extended services from Fortinet to ensure any problems that might arise would be promptly resolved. (Id. at ¶ 16.)

Soon after putting Fortinet equipment into Alorica’s production environment, issues were encountered with both software and hardware. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) Alorica experienced various recurring defects. (Id. at ¶¶ 24-25.) Fortinet was unable to deliver a reliable fix. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Fortinet personnel spent weeks at Alorica’s facilities, but many of the problems were never solved. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Alorica has demanded Fortinet refund the amounts paid for the defective equipment, but Fortinet has refused. (Id. at ¶ 33.)

The Complaint sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Warranty; and (2) Negligent Misrepresentation. Fortinet now moves to have the case designated complex. Alorica does not oppose the motion, but requests that the designation be delayed until after the upcoming hearing on Alorica’s Special Motion to Strike Fortinet, Inc.’s First Amended Cross Complaint in part, set to be heard on August 27, 2019, in Department 19.

III. LEGAL STANDARD
IV.
A “complex case” is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(a).)

In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a), the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve:

(1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;

(2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence;

(3) Management of a large number of separately represented parties;

(4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or

(5) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(b).)

V. DISCUSSION
VI.
Fortinet contends this case will involve cross-motions for summary judgment as well as a large amount of discovery. Fortinet states it is in the midst of reviewing at least one hundred thousand documents, including electronically stored information. Fortinet asserts the case will also present complex questions regarding technical issues and allegations of misrepresentations. Fortinet states Alorica contends there is at least $30 million at stake based on Alorica’s claims alone, which does not account for damages based on Fortinet’s cross-claims.

The Court finds this case should be designated complex. The case involves potentially complicated software and hardware issues interconnected with allegations of misrepresentations, as well as a large amount of discovery. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

The anti-SLAPP motion currently set for August 27, 2019, will now be heard on August 30, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The briefing schedule based on the original hearing date will remain unchanged.

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.