Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an indemnity and fraud case.  Plaintiff Royal Excel Enterprises Corp. (“Royal”) bought the property located at 521 N. Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, California (the “Property”) with the intent of remodeling and then re-selling it.  (Compl. ¶13.)  Plaintiff 521 N. Canon Dr. LLC (“Canon”) was formed to secure construction financing.  (Id. ¶16.)  Royal later sold the Property to Canon.  (Id.) 

Royal entered into a written agreement with Defendant Roman James Design Build Inc. (“RJDB”) for general contractor services.  (Id. ¶14.)  RJDB contracted with Defendant Brown and Brown Insurance Services of California, Inc. (“Brown”) for an insurance policy that named Plaintiffs as additional insureds.  (Id. ¶17.)  RJDB was also insured by Defendant Gemini Insurance Agency Inc. (“Gemini”), which policy also named Plaintiffs as additional insureds.  (Id. ¶17.)  Defendant Vela Insurance Services LLC (“Vela”) handles the claims for Gemini.  (Id.)   

On October 31, 2018, Braham Hakimfar and Vida Hakimfar (“Hakimfars”) filed a complaint naming Roman James (“RJ”), RJDB, Royal and Canon as defendants, alleging a single cause of action for negligence (“the Hakimfar case”).  The crux of the Hakimfars’ complaint is that their property located at 518 N. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, California had been damaged as a result of the construction work on Plaintiffs’ Property.  (Id. ¶19.)   

RJ and RJDB (“Moving Defendants”) later settled and were dismissed by the Hakimfars, but the settlement did not include Plaintiffs.  (Id. ¶22.)  Plaintiffs opposed the Good Faith Settlement, arguing the settlement was entered into in bad faith to wrongfully assign all liability to Plaintiffs.  (Id.)  Plaintiffs prevailed on their argument.   

Plaintiffs then filed a cross-complaint against Moving Defendants on July 21, 2023, which was on the eve of trial, and the Court severed the claims to allow Moving Defendants to conduct discovery, depositions and file a motion for summary judgment.  The trial on the Hakimfar case (without the claims against the Moving Defendants) was set for February 13, 2024.   

Plaintiffs also filed this separate lawsuit, which contains the same factual allegations and two of the same causes of action (for equitable indemnity and implied contractual indemnity).  Moving Defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike, and this Court ruled as follows:  “[T]he Court stays this action pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Complaint in Case No. 18STCV03136.”   

On December 12, 2023, the Court in the Hakimfar case sustained Moving Defendants’ demurrer and granted its motion to strike the cross-complaint of Royal Excel.   

This hearing is on Moving Defendants’ motion to lift the stay and obtain a further ruling on their demurrer and motion to strike.   Now that the Court in the Hakimfar case has resolved the Cross-Complaint, Moving Defendants argue this Court should lift the stay on this case and make a substantive ruling on their demurrer and motion to strike.  As of the posting of this tentative ruling, no opposition was filed.     

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Moving Defendants request judicial notice of (1) the Order sustaining Moving Defendants’ demurrer and granting the motion to strike the cross-complaint of Royal Excel in Case No. 18STCV03136, (2) Moving Defendants’ ex parte application to lift the stay and make a further ruling on their demurrer and motion to strike, and (3) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Moving Defendants’ ex parte application to lift the stay.  The Court grants the request pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 452(d), 452(h), and 453.   

DISCUSSION 

 This Court put a stay in place pending a ruling on the cross-complaint in the Hakimfar case.  The Hakimfar court has now ruled on the cross-complaint, sustaining a demurrer and granting a motion to strike the cross-complaint.  Accordingly, this Court lifts the stay on this case so that it can rule on Defendants’ previously filed demurrer and motion to strike.  However, the Court requires supplemental briefing on whether the ruling on the cross-complaint in the Hakimfar matter provides further grounds for the demurrer and motion to strike.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Moving Defendants’ motion to lift the stay, and sets the hearing on Moving Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike for April 29, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.  The parties are to file supplemental briefs by March 29, 2024.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  March 12, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court