Related Contentin Montgomery County
Case
Jpmorgan Chase Bank N.a. vs. Deborah H Black
Aug 19, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-12755
Case
Joseph Cipolla, Jennifer Cipolla vs. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
Aug 21, 2024 |Other Contract - Under $250,000 |24-08-12919
Case
Oystein Rogne,Gretta Rogne vs.Travelers Personal Insurance Company
Aug 22, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-12983
Case
Aug 19, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-12801
Case
American Express National Bank vs.Cynthia Kane
Aug 23, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-13029
Case
Hugo Cedeno, Plaintiff v. Centauri Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant
Aug 19, 2024 |Consumer/Commerical Debt - Over $250,000 |24-08-12797
Case
Bitty Advance 2, Llc vs. Rodney Frost Distributing, Inc. ,George Rodney Frost
Aug 21, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-12947
Case
Velocity Investments LLC Assignee Of Finwise Bank vs. Efren Cabral
Aug 23, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-13032
Case
Laurie Quandt,Ernst Quandt vs. Spinnaker Insurance Company
Jan 26, 2024 |Other Contract - Under $250,000 |24-08-12850
Ruling
EILEEN SINGER VS RELATED CALIFORNIA URBAN HOUSING, LLC, ET AL.
Aug 22, 2024 |19SMCV01614
Case Number: 19SMCV01614 Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 Dept: M CASE NAME: Singer v. Related California Urban Housing, et al. CASE NO.: 19SMCV01614 MOTIONS: Motion for Summary Judgment by The Related Companies, L.P. (filed May 31, 2024) Motion for Summary Judgment by Related California Urban Housing, LLC (filed May 30, 2024) Motion for Summary Judgment by Related Ocean Avenue Associates, LLC (filed May 29, 2024) Motion for Summary Judgment by RR Santa Monica Development Company, LLC (filed May 29, 2024) HEARING DATE: 8/22/2024 Legal Standard A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (CCP, § 437c(a).) The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in¿Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.¿(CCP,¿§ 437c(f)(1).)¿If a party seeks summary adjudication as an alternative to a request for summary judgment, the request must be clearly made in the notice of the motion. (Gonzales v. Superior Court¿(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1544.)¿ [A] party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to subdivision (t). (CCP,¿§ 437c(t).)¿ To prevail, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¿(CCP, §¿437c(c).)¿The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, 841.) In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, [a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment& (Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1198-99.) In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true. (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 179.) However, if adjudication is otherwise proper the motion may not be denied on grounds of credibility, except when¿a material fact is the witnesss¿state of mind and that fact is sought to be established solely by the [witnesss] affirmation thereof. (CCP, § 437c(e).)¿ Once the moving party has met their burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP § 437c(p)(1).) [T]here¿is no obligation on the opposing party... to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element... necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor.¿(Consumer Cause, Inc. v.¿SmileCare¿(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)¿ ¿ The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to¿frame¿the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding. (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co.¿(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493, quotations and citations omitted.) Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate plaintiff's theories of liability¿as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings. (Ibid.)¿ EVIDENTIARY ISSUES Request for Judicial Notice The moving defendants seek judicial notice of the third amended complaint (TAC) and statements the Court made in its December 27, 2023, ruling on the defendants demurrer. The Court grants the request for judicial notice as to all documents but not as to the hearsay allegations therein. (Evid. Code, § 452(c), (d), and (h).) Evidentiary Objections On August 16, 2024, the moving defendants filed identical objections to evidence. Objection Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11 are SUSTAINED. Objection Nos. 8, 9, and 10 are OVERRULED. Analysis Defendants Related California Urban Housing, LLC (RCUH), Related Ocean Avenue Associates, LLC (ROVA), RR Santa Monica Development Company, LLC (RRSMDC), and The Related Companies, L.P. (TRCLP) move for summary judgment. The TAC contains the following allegations. In or about 2006, TRCLP won the rights to develop The Village at Santa Monica (TVSM). (TAC ¶ 24.) To insulate [itself] from liabilities arising from development of TVSM, TRCLP formed [Santa Monica Urban Housing A, LLC (SMUHA)] to be the nominal owner/developer of The Waverly. (TAC ¶ 26.) SMUHA is an undercapitalized, single purpose entity, used as an alter ego to shield the upstream Related Companies from liability in connection with the development, marketing, and sale of condominium units at The Waverly in general and claims of purchasers like Plaintiff in particular. (TAC ¶ 26.) In addition, SMUHA has no officers, directors, or employees. It uses the same mailing address as the other Related Companies, and it relies on them to carry out its functions. Indeed, there is such a unity of interest and lack of separateness between SMUHA and the other Related Companies that SMUHA exists only on paper. (TAC ¶ 27.) TRCLP also created the Related and Related Companies umbrellas and their logos, trademarks, and websites in order to operate, develop, finance, market, sell, lease, and manage projects including The Waverly. (TAC ¶ 21.) The upstream Related Companies [including TRCLP] dominated and controlled SMUHA in such pervasive ways as to ignore SMUHAs separateness and to treat it as a mere shell and conduit. (TAC ¶ 28.) As one example of this, the City of Santa Monica required TRCLP to guarantee the projects completion. As recited in the Guarantee Agreement, TRCLP is an Affiliate of Developer, has a substantial financial interest in the business and affairs of Developer and it will receive a substantial economic benefit from the development. TRCLP gave a similar completion guarantee to the projects lender, Wells Fargo Bank, and to the projects equity partner, Resmark Equity Partners, Inc. &. In 2014, needing to close out the project but faced with mounting fenestration problems, TRCLP also guaranteed performance of the fenestration supplier, Tesla Wall Systems LLC (Tesla). (TAC ¶ 29 [emphasis added].) TRCLP partly owned and wholly funded, and Helou & Sons Corp (Helou), the subcontractor that installed The Waverlys window systems. (TAC ¶ 39.) The multiple lawsuits between TRCLP and Tesla describe how TRCLP acted as the de facto developer of TVSM and The Waverly. TRCLPs intimate involvement in the design, manufacture, and installation of the window system at The Waverly evidence aiding and abetting Defendants consequent financial interest in assisting SMUHA and other Defendants in their breach of fiduciary duty by shifting the financial burden of the water intrusion and fenestration problems onto & homeowner members, including Plaintiff. (TAC ¶¶ 71(b), 100(b).) TRCLP now moves for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs claims against it based on alter ego and aiding and abetting theories lack merit. When the doctrine of alter ego is invoked, one element always present is the unity of interest between the corporation and its shareholders. [Citation.] (Rosen v. E. C. Losch, Inc. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 324, 333.) Numerous cases hold that & element is established upon a showing of close ownership and control of the entire organizational framework. (Id.) Another factor is the undercapitalization of the entity. (Id. at p. 334.) The decisions likewise hold that personal liability will attach when the corporation is rendered insolvent due to the manipulation of assets and liabilities between entities so as to concentrate the assets in one and the liabilities in another. (Id.) A second basic requirement for invoking the alter ego doctrine is the promotion of injustice if the corporate entity is not disregarded [citation], but bad faith in one form or another should first be shown. [Citation.] Bad faith, manifestly, is the complete opposite of good faith. [For example, in Rosen,] [t]he parties to the subject transaction being joint venturers, each owed to the other the utmost good faith [citation] and each was accordingly required to refrain from taking any unfair advantage of his coadventurer. (Rosen, supra, 234 Cal.App.2d at pp. 334-335.) Under an aiding and abetting theory, a defendant must have actual knowledge of the specific primary wrong being committed and give substantial assistance to the wrongful conduct. (Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 154, 188.) To prove that Plaintiffs alter ego and aiding and abetting theories lack merit, TRCLP submits the following undisputed facts. TRCLP is not a member of SMUHA. (Plaintiffs response to TRCLPs separate statement of undisputed material facts, filed August 8, 2024 (TRLP-Plaintiff UMF) ¶ 15.) TRCLPs connection to SMUHA is by virtue of the fact that TRCLP is a partner of Defendant Related General IV, LP (RGIV), which is then a member of Related California Urban Housing, LLC, which is then a member of Related Ocean Avenue Associates, LLC, which is a member of RR Santa Monica Development Company, LLC, which is ultimately a member of SMUHA. (TRLP-Plaintiff UMF ¶ 16.) TRCLP also submits as evidence the declarations of its General Counsel Alexis Kremen (Kremen) and RCMP IV, Inc.s Executive Vice President and Director David Zussman (Zussman). Both declarations were filed on May 31, 2024. Kremen testifies, among other things, that aside from issuing a completion guarantee and entering a joint venture with the projects window supplier, TRCLP was only minimally involved in the development of the TVSM project. (Kremen Decl. ¶ 16.) In addition, TRCLP does not commingle funds or other assets with any defendant entity. (Kremen Decl. ¶ 16.) TRCLP never specifically communicated or interacted with Plaintiff. (Kremen Decl. ¶ 17.) Furthermore, no individual treats TRCLPs assets as his/her own, and no individual holds out that he/she is personally liable for the debts of TRCLP. (Kremen Decl. ¶ 9.) Finally, the ownership of TRCLP does not divert its assets to the detriment of its creditors. (Kremen Decl. ¶ 10.) Zussman testifies that RGIV (the entity that TRCLP is a partner in) was not involved in the development of the TVSM project, RGIV never communicated or interacted with Plaintiff, RGIV is not a member of SMUHA, RGIV adheres to corporate formalities, and was sufficiently capitalized for its purpose, among other things. (Zussman Decl. ¶¶ 4-6, 12, 14.) Even if this evidence proves that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that TRCLP was an alter ego of SMUHA and other defendants, it does not establish that TRCLP did not aid or abet SMUHAs alleged wrongdoing. Furthermore, it is not evident that Plaintiff needs to prove an alter ego and aiding and abetting theory against TRCLP in order for TRCLP to be found liable. The TAC contains allegations that suggest TRCLP is directly liable for the alleged wrongful conduct. For example, it alleges that TRCLP (1) was the de facto developer, (2) had a substantial financial interest in the business and affairs of SMUHA, (3) would gain substantial economic benefit from the development of TVSM, (4) partly owned and wholly funded Tesla to design, manufacture, and supply The Waverlys window systems, and (5) knew of the fenestration and soil problems through various litigation and yet TRCLP did not reveal those problems to The Waverly condominium buyers like Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not address these direct allegations. Therefore, the Court finds that TRCLP has failed to meet its initial burden for summary judgment. Consequently, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff to show that triable issues exist as to her claims against TRCLP. TRCLPs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. · Related California Urban Housing, LLCs Motion for Summary Judgment The TAC alleges that the defendants used Related California Urban Housing, LLC (RCUH) as a vehicle to fund and control SMUHA. (TAC ¶ 5.) In addition, as a condition of the development of TVSM, the City of Santa Monica required RCUH, or its affiliates, to own and control the entities engaged in the development and sales of the project, including SMUHA. (TAC ¶¶ 24, 70(c), 99(d).) As SMUHAs owner, controller, and guarantor, RCUH and TRCLP, respectively, knew about the water intrusion, fenestration problems, USTs, soil toxins, deficient subterranean waterproofing, related lawsuits, and that SMUHA failed to disclose these facts to prospective buyers of condominium units at The Waverly, including Plaintiff. (TAC ¶¶ 70(c), 99(d).) RCUH moves for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiffs allegation that RCUH is an alter ego of other defendant entities and/or aided and abetted the wrongful conduct alleged in the TAC lacks merit. As evidence, RCUH submits the declaration of Steve Sherman (Sherman), the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Defendant The Related Companies of California, LLC (TRRC). As TRRCs CFO, Sherman oversees the financial transactions of RCUH and Related Ocean Avenue Associates, LLC (ROAA). (Declaration of Steve Sherman in Support of RCUHs motions, filed May 30, 2024 (Sherman Decl.), ¶ 1.) Sherman testifies, among other things, that RCUH (1) was not involved in the development of TVSM, (2) has never specifically communicated with or interacted with Plaintiff, (3) is not a member of SMUHA, (4) it does not commingle funds or other assets with any defendant entity, (5) treat the corporate assets of any other defendant as its own, (6) RCUH adheres to corporate formalities, and (7) although RCUH is a member of ROAA, ROAA does not commingle funds or other assets with any defendant entity or divert corporate funds or assets. (Sherman Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 7, 9-21.) RCUHs connection to SMUHA is by virtue of the fact that RCUH is a member of [ROAA], which is a member of RR Santa Monica Development Company (RRSMDC), which then is a member of SMUHA. (Sherman Decl. ¶ 9.) The Court finds that RHUC has failed to meet its initial burden for summary judgment. Sherman is the CFO of TRRC, not RCUH. Sherman has not explained how his position as CFO of another company gives him personal knowledge regarding the affairs of RCUH. Moreover, his declaration supports the allegation that there is a unity of interest between RCUH and TRRC because RCUHs financial transactions are overseen by the CFO of TRRC. Finally, Shermans declaration does not (and RHUC has not produced any other evidence to) dispute the TACs allegation that RHUC aided and abetted the wrongful conduct alleged in the TAC. Since RHUC has failed to meet its initial burden, the burden on its motion does not shift to the Plaintiff. Therefore, RHUCs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. · Related Ocean Avenue Associates, LLCs Motion for Summary Judgment According to the TAC, ROAA is liable to Plaintiff because it owns and/or controls RR Santa Monica Development Company, LLC (RRSMDC) (a company allegedly owns and/or controls SMUHA) and, therefore, directed, profited from, and/or participated in the wrongful acts alleged in the TAC. (TAC ¶¶ 3, 4.) The TAC does not contain any other specific allegation against ROAA. To prove that Plaintiffs claims against it on alter ego and aiding and abetting theories have no merit, ROAA submits the declaration of Brian Gentner, the General Counsel of another defendant, The Related Companies of California (TRCC). (Declaration of Brian Gentner, Esq., filed May 29, 2024 (Gentner Decl.) ¶¶ 3, 4.) By virtue of the fact that he previously provided general counsel services to ROAA, Gentner attests to the following (among other) facts. (Gentner Decl.) ¶¶ 3, 4.) ROAAs involvement in the development of [TVSM] project was that it was formed to enter into an arms-length joint venture with Villages at Santa Monica Investment Company, LLC (VSMIC), a third-party equity investment entity affiliated with Resmark Equity Partners to provide funding for TVSM. (Gentner Decl. ¶ 4.) ROAA has never specifically communicated with or interacted with Plaintiff Eileen Singer. (Gentner Decl. ¶ 5.) ROAA is a managing member of RRSM and VSMIC is the sole non-managing member of RRSMDC. (Gentner Decl. ¶ 6.) Neither ROAA nor RRSMDC commingle funds or other assets with other defendant entities. (Gentner Decl. ¶ 10.) However, Gentner has not testified when he served as ROAAs general counsel. Therefore, Gentner has not shown he has personal knowledge regarding ROAAs involvement with TVSM project or the events alleged in the TAC. Thus, his declaration fails to establish a foundation for his relevant opinions. Furthermore, he has also failed to dispute that ROAA aided and abetted the conduct alleged in the TAC. ROAA also argues that Plaintiff provided factually devoid responses to discovery. (See Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1577, 1582 [Circ*mstantial evidence supporting a defendants summary judgment motion can consist of factually devoid discovery responses from which an absence of evidence can be inferred, but the burden should not shift without stringent review of the direct, circ*mstantial and inferential evidence. [Citation]].) The Court has reviewed those discovery responses and does not find them factually devoid. (Declaration of Yaniv Newman, filed May 29, 2024, Exhibits B and D Plaintiffs discovery responses.) Therefore, the Court finds that ROAA has failed to meet its initial burden of showing that Plaintiffs claims against it have no merit. Therefore, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff to show triable issues exist as to her claims against ROAA. ROAAs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. · RR Santa Monica Development Company, LLCs Motion for Summary Judgment RRSMDC moves for summary judgment, arguing like all other defendants, that Plaintiffs claims, based on alter ego, and aiding and abetting theories, lack merit. The TAC alleges that RRSMDC owns and/or controls SMUHA. (TAC ¶ 3.) To prove that Plaintiffs claims lack merit, RRSMDC submits the declaration of TRCCs Senior Vice President of Finance and Accounting Benjamin G. Faydock (Faydock) that was filed on May 29, 2024. Faydock testifies that RRSMDCs only involvement with TVSM project was that it was, among other things, the sole member of SMUHA, the owner and developer of The Waverly. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 4.) Furthermore, he declares that RRSMDC and SMUHA do not commingle funds or other assets with any defendant entity or divert corporate funds or assets for other than corporate uses. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 7.) No individual treats the corporate assets of SMUHA or RRSMDC as his/her own. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 8.) No individual holds out that he/she is personally liable for the debts of SMUHA or RRSMDC. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 9.) SMUHA is not solely owned by one individual or one family. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 10.) SMUHA was sufficiently capitalized for its purpose at its onset and maintains corporate assets. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 11.) SMUHA adheres to corporate formalities and engages in arms-length transactions, including its formation. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 12.) SMUHA does not utilize its corporate structure to procure labor, services, or merchandise for another person or entity. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 13.) The ownership of SMUHA does not divert its assets to the detriment of creditors or manipulate its assets to separate assets and liabilities between entities. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 14.) SMUHA does not contract with any entity specifically for the purpose or intent of avoiding liability or to subterfuge illegal transactions. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 15.) SMUHA was not formed and does not function to transfer to itself the existing liability of any other person or entity. (Faydock Decl. ¶ 16.) It is undisputed that RRSMDC was formed as an arms-length joint venture between ROAA and VSMIC (introduced in ROAAs motion above). (Plaintiffs response to RRSMDCs separate statement of undisputed material facts, filed August 8, 2024, ¶ 18.) However, Faydock fails to show that he has personal knowledge of the inner workings of RRSMDC. Indeed, he is the Senior Vice President of Finance and Accounting of TRCC not RRSMDC or SMUHA. Further, his declaration has not denied the aiding and abetting allegations (e.g., RRSMDC owns and/or controls SMUHA, and that SMUHA knew of the problems the condominiums in The Waverly but failed to inform buyers like Plaintiff about those problems). Therefore, the Court finds that RRSMDC has also failed to meet its initial burden. Accordingly, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff on RRSMDCs motion. RRSMDCs motion for summary judgment is also DENIED.
Ruling
RICHARD SANDOVAL VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. ET AL
Aug 20, 2024 |CGC22601788
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, August 20, 2024, Line 5. PLAINTIFF RICHARD SANDOVAL's Motion To Strike Or In The Alternative Tax Costs. Plaintiff's unopposed "motion to strike or in the alternative tax costs" is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
FOULKE, et al. vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Aug 23, 2024 |CVCV21-0197638
FOULKE, ET AL. VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANYCase Number: CVCV21-0197638This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of dismissal. This matter was removed to Federal Court andhas since settled. The Court was informed at previous review hearings that the only pending issue is attorney’sfees. The Court removes this case from the Court’s control due to the removal to Federal Court. The matter ishereby deemed exempt from case disposition time standards. The Court continues this Review Hearing toFebruary 10, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 63. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
AARON CELIOUS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
Aug 20, 2024 |22SMCV00915
Case Number: 22SMCV00915 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 AARON CELIOUS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 22SMCV00915 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT BACKGROUND This action arises from a failed bid for two government projects. Plaintiff Aaron Celious is the owner of Maroon Society Inc. (Maroon). Maroon has assigned its claims to Celious. (Second Amended Complaint (SAC) ¶14.) Maroon is in the business of providing data compilation, analysis and strategic services for both private and public sector entities. (Id. ¶21.) Maroon engaged in a competitive bid process for two different projects for Defendant City of Los Angeles (the City). It was not chosen for either project. (Id. ¶¶23-24.) Defendant Ernesto Morales company, North Star Alliances LLC, was awarded the bid for one of the projects. (Id. ¶¶8, 28, 82.) Defendant Robin Engels company, Star Insights, LLC, was awarded the bid for the other project. (Id. ¶¶9, 28, 170.) Plaintiff alleges that Engel and Morales grossly and fraudulently misrepresented the qualifications and experiences of their companies, to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over Maroon. (Id. ¶28.) Plaintiff also alleges that the City and its procurement officers (Defendants Andrew Westall, Holly Wolcott, Capri Maddox and Joey Garcia, collectively the City of Los Angeles Defendants) violated the Citys procurement laws (1) by utilizing secret criteria to award contracts instead of using the evaluation criteria they advertised in the requests for proposal (RFPs), (2) failing to assemble an evaluation and review committee comprised of competent and disinterested representatives of the City to evaluate the proposals; (3) failing to deem the proposals of North Star and Star Insights as non-responsive for their multiple failures to comply with RFP requirements; (4) failing to devote the care and expertise needed to review the proposals submitted by North Star and Star Insights to identify the multitude of allegedly false and fraudulent claims made in each respective proposal; (5) failing to hold a hearing on Plaintiffs protest as allegedly promised in the RFPs, and required by due process and equal protection provisions under the United States Constitution; and (6) failing to conduct the procurement for the RFPs in a manner consistent with the laws, formalities and practices established to ensure a fair bidding process, and eliminate favoritism, fraud, and corruption in awarding City contracts. (Id. ¶¶ 192-198.) The operative second amended complaint alleges claims for (1) fraud, (2) negligence, (3) violation of Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (5) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and (6) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq. This hearing is on Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The proposed amendments purportedly seek to (1) eliminate claims against City of Los Angeles defendants on which the Court had previously sustained a demurrer, (2) name Defendants Engel and Morales in one previously existing cause of action (for fraud) where they were not previously listed as defendants, and (3) add a new cause of action based on facts already pleaded (violation of False Claims Act, Cal. Govt Code § 12650). LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1), provides, in relevant part: The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.¿ Under California Rules of Court Rule, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a),¿a motion to amend a pleading shall:¿ (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;¿ (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and¿ (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.¿¿ ¿ In addition, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b),¿a¿separate declaration¿must accompany the motion and must specify:¿¿ (1) the effect of the amendment;¿ (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper;¿ (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and¿ (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿ ¿¿ The Courts discretion to grant leave should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿¿The Court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿¿ DISCUSSION Plaintiffs declaration in support of the motion fails to meet the requirements under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff does not identify the specific amendments, referring to them vaguely and generally as proposed amendments. Plaintiff also fails to explain the effect of each proposed amendment or the recently received information that prompted the amendment. For example, Plaintiff seeks to add Defendants Engel and Morales as defendants to his fraud cause of action. Plaintiff fails to explain why he failed to make this amendment earlier. Indeed, he argues that facts alleged in the original complaint would support a fraud claim against these Defendants, suggesting that the amendment could in fact have been made earlier. As another example, Plaintiff seeks to add a new material fact as to when his economic relationship with the City began. He claims the relationship was from 2011 to 2014. But Plaintiff has not offered a single explanation as to why he is only seeking to amend his complaint to allege a fact that was purportedly known to him for 13 years. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to amend. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 20, 2024 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
GABRIEL RUEDA VS EMMANUEL D PACQUIAO ET AL
Aug 22, 2024 |BC611486
Case Number: BC611486 Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 Dept: 40 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 40 GABRIEL RUEDA, also known as GABRIEL SALVADOR (an individual), Plaintiff, v. EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO (an individual); FREDERICK ROACH (an individual); KEITH M. DAVIDSON (an individual); CBS Corporation, (a Delaware corporation); SHOWTIME NETWORKS, Inc. (a Delaware corporation); and DOES 1-25, Defendants. Case No.: BC611486 Hearing Date: 8/22/24 Trial Date: 11/18/24 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendants Showtime Networks Inc., Paramount Global, and Frederick Roachs Joint Notice and Motion for Additional Time to Complete the Deposition of Gabriel Rueda. Background Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda sues Defendants Emmanuel Pacquiao, Frederick (Freddie) Roach, Keith M. Davidson, Paramount Global (Paramount; formerly CBS Corporation), Showtime Networks, Inc. (Showtime), and Does 1-25 pursuant to a February 2, 2024 Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The TAC alleges claims of: (1) Breach of Oral Contract against the Showtime Defendants and Freddie Roach; (2) Omitted [Breach of Implied Contract; Dismissed by the Court]; (3) Common Counts for Labor, Work, and Services against the Showtime Defendants and Freddie Roach; (4) Quantum Meruit against the Showtime Defendants and Freddie Roach; (5) Fraud in the Inducement against Freddie Roach; (6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation against Freddie Roach; (7) Omitted [Unjust Enrichment; Dismissed by the Court]; (8) Omitted [Attempted Extortion; Dismissed by the Court]; and (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against the Showtime Defendants, Freddie Roach, Defendant Pacquiao, and Defendant Davidson. The claims arise from allegations that Rueda, pursuant to an unpaid finders fee, introduced Leslie Moonves, the then-president of CBS Corporation and Showtime Networks, to Defendant Roach, who was the trainer and confidant of boxer Pacquiao. Moonves allegedly used the introduction to broker a bout between Pacquiao and boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr.dubbed the Fight of the Centurythat earned Pacquiao, Mayweather, and Showtime Networks more than $430 million. According to Rueda, he is entitled to 2% of the gross proceeds from the Fight received by Roach, Pacquiao, and Paramount and Showtime (the CBS Defendants). After this matter was send back to this Court from the second of its two appeals, the Court granted Defendants request to reopen discovery as to matters that had been stayed on appeal. The Court initially granted an additional seven hour deposition of Plaintiff, in addition to the approximately 11 hours that Plaintiff had already been deposed. (12/21/23 Minutes.) On May 3, 2024, Freddie Roach filed a motion to compel, among other things, a second post-appeal remote deposition of Plaintiff Rueda on Ruedas contract, quasi-contract, and fraud claims. On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff Rueda filed an ex parte application for an order bifurcating plaintiff Gabriel Ruedas deposition on his contract, quasi-contract and fraud claims, or, in the alternative, advancing the hearing date on Roachs Motion to Take Separate Deposition of Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda on Contract, Quasi-Contract and Fraud Claims, which was set for hearing on July 2, 2024. On May 8, 2024, the Court granted the ex parte application and set the bifurcated portion of Freddie Roachs motion for hearing on May 24, 2024. On May 9, 2024, Defendants Showtime Networks Inc. and Paramount Global filed a joinder in Freddie Roachs motion. At the May 24 hearing, the Court granted Defendant Roachs motion to take a second four-hour deposition of Plaintiff Rueda on contract, quasi-contract and fraud claims. (Min. Order at p.16, May 24, 2024.) The Court also granted Defendants Showtime Networks Inc. and Paramount Globals joinder in the motion. (Min. Order at p.16, May 24, 2024.) Thus, all told, plaintiff was to undergo an additional 11 hours of deposition, subsequent to the appellate remittitur. On July 16, 2024, Defendants Showtime Networks Inc., Paramount Global, and Freddie Roach filed a joint motion for additional time to complete the deposition of Plaintiff Rueda only as it related to the breach of contract claims. On August 9, 2024, Rueda opposed the motion for additional time. On August 15, 2024, Defendants Showtime Networks Inc., Paramount Global, and Freddie Roach replied. Motion for Additional Time to Complete Deposition Legal Standard Once any party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (a).) However, for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition, and the parties, with the consent of any deponent who is not a party, may stipulate that a subsequent deposition be taken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (b).) Section 2025.610 does not preclude taking one subsequent deposition of a natural person who has previously been examined as a PMQ or pursuant to a court order under Section 485.230 for the identity, location, and value of property in which the deponent has an interest, and does not authorize the taking of more than one subsequent deposition for the limited purpose of a right to attachment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subds. (c)-(d) [not applicable here].) The total time for deposition by all counsel is generally limited to seven hours. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.290, subd. (a).) However, a court shall allow additional time, beyond any limits imposed by this section, if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circ*mstance impedes or delays the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.290, subd. (a).) Subdivision (a) and parts of subdivision (b) have been found by California courts to impose merely presumptive restrictions that are applicable only if the court does not order otherwise, thus giving courts ample discretion as to additional deposition time. (Certainteed Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1060-1062 (Certainteed) [seven-hour limit and 14-hour limit in complex cases merely presumptive], superseded by statute on other grounds as discussed in Cahill Construction Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 777, 786-787 (Cahill) [Legislature responds to Certainteed by enacting law becoming Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.295].) Additional restrictions to depositions exist in circ*mstances where the deponent suffers from mesothelioma or silicosis, raising substantial medical doubt of the survival of the deponent beyond six months. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.295.) Discussion Defendants Showtime Networks Inc., Paramount Global, and Freddie Roach argue they need an additional two hours to examine Rueda because excessive objections, evasive responses, lengthy non-answers, and time-consuming argument impeded his June 25 deposition. (Joint Mot. for Addtl Time at p.1, lines 9-11.) The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs counsels excessive objections prevented them from completing their examination within the allocated four-hour time limit. (Joint Mot. for Addtl Time at p.3, lines 22-23.) The Defendants also argue that Plaintiff Rueda hindered and delayed his deposition by refusing to answer questions or providing evasive or longwinded responses. (Joint Mot. for Addtl Time at p.3, lines 27-28; p.9 at lines 8-11.) The Defendants contend that, for these reasons, they need at least an additional two hours to examine Rueda. (Joint Mot. for Addtl Time at p.12, lines 23-25.) In opposition, Plaintiff Rueda argues that the motion should be denied, asserting that he answered all the questions posed by the Defendants' counsel. (Oppn. at p.4, lines 4-6.) He also notes that he has already spent a significant amount of time in deposition and contends that the Defendants are not entitled to additional time. (Oppn. at p.5, lines 9-12.) Plaintiff Rueda also argues that the objections asserted by his counsel were properly asserted. (Oppn. at p.6, lines 5-8.) Rueda also argues that the fact the Defendants did not receive the answer they hoped for does not indicate that he refused to answer the question. (Oppn. at p.7, lines 24-26.) In reply, Defendants Showtime Networks Inc., Paramount Global, and Freddie Roach reiterate that they still have not received answers to many of their key questions. (Reply at p.1, lines 10-15.) They also maintain that Plaintiff provided non-responsive answers, which resulted in a significant amount of deposition time being wasted. (Reply at p.1, lines 16-23.) After reviewing the moving and opposing papers, the Court will grant the limited relief sought of 2 additional hours of testimony as to the contract claims. While Plaintiff is correct that there have already been four days of deposition, there are reasons why, many of which have been previously noted by the Court in its prior rulings: the matter needed to be reopened because of the appeals in this case, which stayed discovery on many issues; there are multiple defendants each with their own attorneys; and the facts in this case are complex and extensive and different from one defendant to the other. As to the specific four-hour deposition that is at issue here, the Court was present by telephone for part of that deposition, and has reviewed the entire transcript of the same. Without getting into the question of which answers were responsive or unduly took tangents that took extensive time, the Court agrees with Defendants that the excessive number of objections interposed after the majority of the questions, many of which were without merit, unreasonably lengthened the time necessary for the deposition. To take a few examples, objecting on the ground of leading is meritless in any deposition of an adverse witness. (Evid. Code § 776.) Two attorneys made objections at different times. Many of the objections on the grounds of vague and ambiguous, lacks foundation, and misstating prior testimony were not well founded or necessary. As Appendix 3.A, subdivision (e)(7), states, [c]ounsel defending a deposition should limit objections to those that are well founded and necessary for the protection of a clients interest. Counsel should bear in mind that most objections are preserved and need be interposed only when the form of the question is defective or privileged information is sought. Here, while there is no reason to doubt that the objections may have been well intentioned, the Court concludes that there were excessive, unnecessary objections which unduly lengthened the deposition, and which justify an additional two hours. Conclusion The motion by Defendants Showtime Networks Inc., Paramount Global, and Frederick Roachs for Additional Time to Complete the Deposition of Gabriel Rueda is GRANTED. The moving defendants may have an additional two hours, not including breaks, to finish their deposition on the contract claims.
Ruling
GARRY TINDELL VS JAY NIETO, AN INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS AS GENESIS 1 AUTO CONCEPTS, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY
Aug 23, 2024 |23BBCV00284
Case Number: 23BBCV00284 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: NCB Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles North Central District Department B garry tindell, Plaintiff, v. jay nieto, an individual dba GENESIS 1 AUTO CONCEPTS, Defendant. Case No.: 23BBCV00284 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to set aside default and default judgment BACKGROUND A. Allegations Plaintiff Garry Tindell (in propria persona, Plaintiff) alleges that he expected a reasonable repair fee for his 1966 Mustang, which only had a few problems. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jay Nieto, an individual dba Genesis 1 Auto Concepts (Defendant) presented him with a Work Order for $19,901.50 that allegedly reflected the repairs made to Plaintiffs car. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant guaranteed that Genesis had performed a full makeover of the vehicle, which included replacing the starter, the fuel pumps, the engine mount, the brakes, the master brake cylinder, a rebuilt carburetor, a fully rebuilt Ford 289 engine, a rebuilt Ford C4 transmission, and 36 additional parts. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant warranted to Plaintiff that all of the replacement parts would be new, rebuilt, or reconditioned, but Defendant intentionally suppressed the fact that many of the parts Genesis used to repair the vehicle were old, defective, and unsafe. The complaint, filed February 3, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud and deceit; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) violation of statute; (4) breach of oral contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) unfair business practices; and (7) breach of implied warranty. On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice DOE Defendants only. B. Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar On April 14, 2023, the default of Defendant was entered. On January 11, 2024, the default judgment of Defendant was entered. On July 9, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default and default judgment. On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. The Court notes that Defendant filed a second motion to set aside the default and default judgment on July 10, 2024. The later-filed motion is set for hearing on September 13, 2024. DISCUSSION Defendant moves to set aside the default and default judgment pursuant to counsels mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect under CCP § 473(b). As noted above, Defendant filed two motions to set aside the default. The motion filed on July 9, 2024 (Reservation ID #038659920023) is 8 pages in length. The motion filed on July 10, 2024 (Reservation ID #309016394085) is 16 pages in length and includes a copy of the proposed answer. Otherwise, the motions appear to have identical memorandums of points and authorities and declarations in support of the motion. The motion filed on July 9, 2024 that is set for hearing on August 23, 2024 shall be continued to September 13, 2024 so that the two motions to set aside may be heard and considered together. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant Jay Nieto, an individual dba Genesis 1 Auto Concepts motion to vacate the default and default judgment is continued to September 13, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. so that it may be heard concurrently with the second motion to vacate the default and default judgment. Defendant shall provide notice of this order. DATED: August 23, 2024 ___________________________ John J. Kralik Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
Aug 19, 2024 |CGC20584221
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Monday, Aug-19-2024, Line 1, 2-PLAINTIFF QIAN & NEMECEK LLP's Application For Order To Show Cause Re: Contempt And Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants And Judgment Debtors Rock Clapper And Ngb Markets, Inc. Continued to September 16, 2024, on the court's motion. No JPT available. (D525)
Ruling
Blum vs. Ford Motor Company
Aug 25, 2024 |24CV-0205226
BLUM, ET AL. VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.Case Number: 24CV-0205226Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration: This matter is on calendar for hearing onDefendant Crown Motors’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action. On August 14, 2024,Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal of Crown Motors from the action. The Clerk entered theDismissal on August 14, 2024. Therefore, Crown Motors is no longer party to the action.Defendant Ford Motors did not join in the Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Motion is moot.Today’s hearing is VACATED. Additionally, a Notice of Removal of Action to Federal Courtwas recently filed on August 21, 2024, suspending this Court’s jurisdiction. This matter istherefore removed from the Court’s control. No other appearances are required by the partiesunless or until this matter is remanded back to state court. Plaintiff is ordered to dismiss this actionwhen the Federal matter resolves. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS. STRIKE FIRST SNIPERS LLC, ET
Document
Joe D. Newcomb, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Newcomb5252, LLC vs. Jerry Newcomb,Newcomb 5252, LLC,NeuAG, LLC,Randall Hulvey,Jason Kennedy,Matthew Eaker,BASF Corporation
Nov 01, 2023 |Santini, Vincenzo J |Other Contract - Over $250,000 |23-11-16399
Document
American Express National Bank vs. Brit Wiegand
Aug 23, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-13040
Document
Jpmorgan Chase Bank N.a. vs. Deborah H Black
Aug 19, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-12755
Document
American Express National Bank vs. Brit Wiegand
Aug 23, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-13040
Document
FreightPOP, Inc. vs. Creek Crossing Management, LLC, Gregory J. Lewis, Radius Flex, LLC, and Vikor Scientific, LLC
Sep 22, 2023 |Santini, Vincenzo J |Consumer/Commerical Debt - Over $250,000 |23-09-14105
Document
Chad Radley vs. Auto Club Indemnity Company
Aug 23, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-13049
Document
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Stephanie A Lupercio
Aug 19, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-12759
Document
American Express National Bank vs. Gabriel Bordei
Aug 19, 2024 |Consumer/Commercial Debt - Under $250,000 |24-08-12765
