Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21GDCV01353, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org
PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY.Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.
IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.
THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.
THANK YOU!
Case Number: 21GDCV01353 Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 Dept: NCB
North Central District
ANDREW BERGMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
ISAAC BLOCHER, et al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: 21GDCV01353
Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE |
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiffs Andrew Bergman, Andrew Bondarczuk, Edward Bondarczuk, Matthew Bondarczuk, Steve Bondarczuk, Cain Hernandez, Joshua Miller, Aaron Mullenix, Christopher Nuesa, Jane Park, William Marc Salsberry, Trevor Schmidt, Aaron Stogner, Brian Walters, and Carlos Zoller (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendant Isaac Blocher, Kristie Blocher, Aneaka English, Blocher Holdings LLC, Consortium Title, LLC, Wholesale Listings Ltd. Co., LLC, Wholesale Real Estate, LLC, WSRE South Carolina, LLC aka WSRE S. Carolina, LLC, WSRE Georgia, LLC, Selling N. Atlanta, LLC, Selling Real Estate, LLC, Selling N. Charleston, LLC, Selling N. Richmond, LLC, WSRE Florida, LLC, and E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. Shepherds, LLC is named as a nominal defendant.
Plaintiffs allege that they are members and investors of Shepherds LLC. Isaac and Kristie Blocher are alleged to be the members of Blocher Holdings LLC (now dissolved) and Blocher Holdings LLC served as the manager for Shepherds LLC. Isaac Blocher is also alleged to be the manager of Shepherds LLC.
Plaintiffs allege that Isaac Blocher made false promises to Plaintiffs to induce their investment into Shepherds LLC, such as promising he would generate income for Plaintiffs, be a professional investment mortgage broker and private lender, be a good steward to Plaintiffs’ investment, etc. (FAC, ¶42.) In reliance on Isaac Blocher’s representations, Plaintiffs invested a total of $2,437,488 into Shepherds LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Isaac Blocher invested nearly all of Plaintiffs’ funds with Aneaka English and transferred nearly $2.1 million from the company’s bank account into Aneaka English’s bank account. Plaintiffs allege that Aneaka English subsequently stole the money. Plaintiffs allege that this and other conduct by Isaac Blocher amounted to grossly negligence and/or reckless investing and behavior.
The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed July 1, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty – count one – direct cause of action; (2) breach of fiduciary duty – count two – derivative cause of action; (3) conversion – count one – direct cause of action; (4) conversion – count two – derivative cause of action; (5) fraud – count one – direct cause of action; (6) negligence – count one – direct cause of action; (7) negligence – count two – derivative cause of action; (8) breach of written contract – count one – direct cause of action; (9) breach of written contract – count two – derivative cause of action; (10) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing – direct cause of action; (11) violation of Bus. & Profs. Code, §§ 17200 et seq. – count one – direct cause of action; (12) violation of Bus. & Profs. Code, §§ 17200 et seq. – count two – derivative cause of action; (13) accounting – count one – direct cause of action; and (14) accounting – count two – derivative cause of action.
On January 6, 2022 and October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed Amendments to the Complaint naming Aneaka English (incorrect name) to Aneaka English aka Aneaka Ukah (true name).
On January 26, 2022, the defaults of Isaac Blocher, Kristie Blocher, and Blocher Holdings LLC were entered.
B. Motions on Calendar
There are twelve motions on calendar.
On November 7, 2022, Aneaka English filed a motion to quash the service of the summons and dismiss the FAC (reservation # 771148830234).
On November 7, 2022, Wholesale Real Estate LLC filed a motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the FAC (reservation # 398561230179).
On November 7, 2022, WSRE Florida LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, and Selling N. Atlanta LLC filed a single motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the FAC with three reservation numbers (reservation # 386859702134, 479205719911, and 196034020494).
On November 7, 2022, E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. filed a motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the FAC (reservation # 937408938955).
On November 7, 2022, Selling N Charleston, LLC filed a motion to quash the service of the summons and dismiss the FAC (reservation # 314360058978). The Court notes that the caption states that the motion is brought by E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp., but the body of the moving papers shows that the motion is actually being brought by Selling N. Charleston, LLC.
On November 7, 2022, WSRE South Carolina, LLC aka WSRE S. Carolina, LLC, Selling N. Richmond, LLC, and Selling Real Estate, LLC filed a single motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the FAC with three reservation numbers (reservation # 409284627845, 890322464034, and 451684097881).
On November 7, 2022, Consortium Title LLC and Wholesale Listings Ltd. Co. LLC filed a single motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the FAC with three reservation numbers (reservation # 525594300038 and 713254538953).
On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a combined opposition to the motions to quash for Aneaka English, Wholesale Real Estate LLC, WSRE Florida LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, Selling N. Atlanta LLC, E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp., Consortium Title LLC, and Wholesale Listings Ltd. Co. On December 2, 2022, Defendants filed an omnibus reply brief to this opposition brief.
On December 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a combined opposition to the motions to quash for: (1) E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp; (2) WSRE South Carolina, LLC aka WSRE S. Carolina, LLC; (3) Selling N. Richmond, LLC; and (4) Selling Real Estate, LLC. The Court will also consider the Plaintiffs’ opposition filed on November 28, 2022, which was directed in part against Consortium Title LLC and Wholesale Listings Ltd. Co. On December 7, 2022, Defendants filed an omnibus reply brief to this opposition brief.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial ... continuous and systematic.’” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) When considering if general jurisdiction is present, “it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant's business relationship to the forum.” (Id.) “Such a defendant's contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.” (Id. at 446.)
“If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits [citation], and the ‘controversy is related to or “arises out of” a defendant's contacts with the forum.’ [Citations]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) “Specific or case-linked jurisdiction focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. [Citation]” In particular, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state.” (David L. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 359, 366 [internal quotation marks omitted].)
The 3 requirements for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant are: (1) the defendant must have purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits or purposefully directed activities at forum residents; (2) the controversy must relate to or arise out of the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (David L., supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at 366.) Only if the plaintiff makes the initial showing on the first two requirements does the burden shift to the defendant to show that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Id. at 367.)
DISCUSSION RE ANEAKA ENGLISH’S MOTION
Aneaka English moves to quash the service of the summons and complaint on her for lack of personal jurisdiction and to be dismissed from the action. Ms. English argues that she is not domiciled in California, does not consent to jurisdiction in California, does not have sufficient contacts in California, does not conduct business in California, and has not purposefully availed herself to California.
Ms. English argues that the Court lacks general personal jurisdiction over her because she is not a resident of nor domiciled in California. The FAC alleges that Ms. English is a Georgia resident. (FAC, ¶21.) She argues that to the extent that she entered into agreements on behalf of her companies, she did so while in the State of Georgia.
In her declaration, Ms. English states that she has resided in Georgia for the past 7 years, she does not reside or own property in California, has not conducted business in California, and has not placed any ads for business in California. (English Decl., ¶¶2-3.) She states that she has never met or spoken with any of the individual Plaintiffs in this action and is not a party to the underlying agreement in the FAC. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) She states that she is the principal of the following companies: WSRE Florida LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, WSRE South Carolina LLC aka WSRE S. Carolina LLC, Selling N. Atlanta LLC, Selling N. Richmond LLC, and Selling Real Estate LLC. (Id., ¶6.) She states that these companies are parties to certain agreements with Shepherds LLC that are attached to the FAC as Exhibits 3-12, but these companies only entered into agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing Shepherds LLC’s internet ad while physically located in Georgia. (Id.) She states that on behalf of the companies, she undertook all acts while physically in Georgia and that all the agreements themselves are promissory notes which are secured by real estate outside of California. (Id., ¶¶7-8.) Ms. English states that the agreements do not call for or agree to jurisdiction in California as to her individually or with the companies. (Id., ¶9.) She states she does not have a registered agent for service of process in California and does not maintain a bank account in California, a post office box in California, real estate in California, or a telephone number in California. (Id., ¶¶10-14.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Ms. English personally signed fraudulent promissory notes with Plaintiffs’ company Shepherds LLC and then reneged on her repayment obligations. (Blocher Decl., ¶12.) Plaintiffs provide Ms. English’s RFA responses, wherein she admits that she signed the notes on behalf of her companies and that she personally emailed the signed promissory note for Selling N. Richmond, LLC to California resident and Shepherds LLC manager Isaac Blocher. (Kramer Decl., Ex. 3, Ex. 6 [RFA No. 26].) Ms. English also admits to having and making phone calls with Isaac Blocher (a California resident) from February to August 2018. (Kramer Decl., Ex. 6 [RFA No. 23].) Isaac Blocher states in his declaration that Ms. English did business with California residents, she was fully aware that he and most of Shepherds LLC’s members were California residents, he had informed her that most of the Shepherds LLC members were his friends or from his church in California, they spoke about where the money was coming from, and she spoke about raising funds from these California individuals. (Isaac Blocher Decl., ¶¶3-4.) He also states that Ms. English communicated to him via text, email, and phone calls from 2018 to 2020, they communicated about twice a week, and exchanged thousands of texts, emails, and phone calls during this time. (Id., ¶5.) He provides some examples of emails they exchanged, as well as Ms. English’s acknowledgment that he was from California (i.e., by specifying California time when necessary). (Id., ¶¶6-8, Ex. 1 [Emails].) Ms. English also admits in her RFA responses that she transferred money to California banks between January 1, 2012 to the present. (Kramer Decl., Ex. 5 [RFA No. 5].)
While Ms. English may have engaged in business dealings while she was not physically present in California on behalf of her non-California companies, she appears to have had an ongoing business relationship with Shepherds LLC, a California LLC, and Isaac Blocher for the relevant period of time for this action. This is evidenced by the promissory notes and Mr. Blocher’s declaration and evidence. She entered into contracts with Shepherds LLC, wherein the contracts informed her that Shepherds LLC was a California LLC and the promissory notes all had language that they would be construed and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. (Opp. at Ex. 3.)
Next, Ms. English argues there is an absence of specific personal jurisdiction because she has not purposefully availed herself to California as a forum and the controversy is not related to nor arises from her contacts with California. She argues that the FAC lacks any facts that she directed any actions in California and that she has not done any business in California. Rather, she argues that she, as principal of the companies, only entered into the agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing Shepherds LLC’s internet ad while she was in the State of Georgia.
While this may explain how Ms. English became aware of Shepherds LLC, Ms. English’s RFA responses show that she communicated with California residents regarding the business transactions and visited California banks during the relevant time period. As Mr. Blocher stated in his declaration, he and Ms. English exchanged thousands of texts, emails, and phone calls from 2018 to 2020 regarding Shepherds LLC and Plaintiffs’ investments, and Ms. English was aware during this time that these communications were taking place with a California resident. Plaintiffs argue that Ms. English’s fraudulent business conduct was directed at California residents and she should be subject to California’s judication.
Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Ms. English is subject to specific jurisdiction in California because she purposefully availed herself to forum benefits by engaging in business dealings with California residents and a California LLC and used money from California residents in her business dealings (or allegedly fraudulent schemes). As a result, Plaintiffs’ action against Ms. English relates to or arises from Ms. English’s forum-related activities whereby she allegedly converted their funds.
Thus, Ms. English’s motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss her from the action is denied.
DISCUSSION RE WHOLESALE REAL ESTATE LLC’S MOTION
Wholesale Real Estate LLC (“WRE LLC”) moves to quash the service of the summons and complaint on it for lack of personal jurisdiction and to be dismissed from the action.
Ms. English provides her declaration in support of the motion. She states that WRE LLC is a Virginia LLC, it does not have an office or own property in California, has not conducted business in California, and has not placed any ads for business in California. (English Decl., ¶¶2-3.) She states that WRE LLC did not contract with any Plaintiffs in this matter and is not a party to any underlying agreements attached in the FAC. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) She states that she is the principal of the certain companies that were parties to promissory agreements with Shepherds LLC, but that these companies only entered into agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing Shepherds LLC’s internet ad while physically located in Georgia. (Id., ¶6; FAC, Exs. 3-12.)
She states that on behalf of the companies, she undertook all acts while physically in Georgia and that all the agreements themselves are promissory notes which are secured by real estate outside of California. (English Decl., ¶¶7-8.) Ms. English states that the agreements do not call for or agree to jurisdiction in California as to her individually, with the companies, or with WRE LLC. (Id., ¶9.) She states WRE LLC does not have a registered agent for service of process in California and does not maintain a bank account in California, a post office box in California, real estate in California, or a telephone number in California. (Id., ¶¶10-14.)
WRE LLC’s arguments in its motion are similar to those made by Ms. English in her moving papers. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that WRE LLC entered into a promissory note with Shepherds LLC and refers to their Exhibit 3. However, a review of all the promissory notes attached in Exhibit 3 of the opposition papers shows that there is no promissory note agreement between WRE LLC and Shepherds LLC.
While WRE LLC may be associated with Ms. English, Plaintiffs have not shown how WRE LLC is involved with the facts of this action or how WRE LLC is subject to general and/or specific jurisdiction in the State of California. Thus, the motion is granted.
DISCUSSION RE WSRE FLORIDA LLC, WSRE GEORGIA LLC, AND SELLING N. ATLANTA LLC’S MOTION
WSRE Florida LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, and Selling N. Atlanta LLC move to quash the service of the summons and complaint on them for lack of personal jurisdiction and to be dismissed from the action.
Ms. English provides her declaration in support of the motion. She states that WRSE Florida LLC is a Florida LLC, while WSRE Georgia LLC and Selling N. Atlanta LLC are Georgia LLCs, they do not have an office or own property in California, have not conducted business in California, and have not placed any ads for business in California. (English Decl., ¶¶2-3.) She states that the three entities only entered into agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing a Shepherds LLC interest ad while physically located in Georgia and that all of her actions undertaken on behalf of the three entities was done while she was physically in Georgia. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) She states the promissory note agreements secured real estate outside of California. (Id., ¶6.) She states the agreements do not call or agree to jurisdiction in California for herself or the entities. (Id., ¶7.) Ms. English states that the three entities do not have a registered agent for service of process in California and do not maintain a bank account in California, a post office box in California, real estate in California, or a telephone number in California. (Id., ¶¶8-12.)
It is undisputed that these entities entered into a promissory note agreement with Shepherds LLC. For the same reasons discussed above regarding Ms. English’s motion to quash, the Court finds that the same reasoning applies to WSRE Florida LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, and Selling N. Atlanta LLC. As such, the motion is denied.
DISCUSSION RE E.S. REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM CORP.’S MOTION
E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. moves to quash the service of the summons and complaint on it for lack of personal jurisdiction and to be dismissed from the action.
Ms. English provides her declaration in support of the motion. She states that E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. is a Virginia corporation, it does not have an office or own property in California, has not conducted business in California, and has not placed any ads for business in California. (English Decl., ¶¶2-3.) She states that it did not contract with Plaintiffs in this matter and is not a party to any of the underlying agreements attached in the FAC. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) She states that she is the principal of the certain companies that were parties to promissory agreements with Shepherds LLC, but that these companies only entered into agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing Shepherds LLC’s internet ad while physically located in Georgia. (Id., ¶6; FAC, Exs. 3-12.) She states that on behalf of those contracting companies (not including E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp.), she undertook all acts while physically in Georgia and that all the agreements themselves are promissory notes which are secured by real estate outside of California. (English Decl., ¶¶7-8.) Ms. English states that the agreements do not call for or agree to jurisdiction in California as to her individually, with the companies, or with E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. (Id., ¶9.) She states E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. does not have a registered agent for service of process in California and does not maintain a bank account in California, a post office box in California, real estate in California, or a telephone number in California. (Id., ¶¶10-14.)
For the same reasons discussed above regarding Wholesale Real Estate LLC’s motion to quash, the Court finds that the same reasoning applies to E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp. As such, the motion is granted.
DISCUSSION RE SELLING N. CHARLESTON, LLC’S MOTION
Selling N. Charleston, LLC (“SNC”) moves to quash the service of the summons and complaint on it for lack of personal jurisdiction and to be dismissed from the action.
In support of the motion, SNC provides the declaration of Anaeka English. She states that SNC is a South Carolina LLC, it does not have an office or own property in California, has not conducted business in California, and has not placed any ads for business in California. (English Decl., ¶¶2-3.) She states that SNC did not contract with any Plaintiffs in this matter and is not a party to any underlying agreements attached in the FAC. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) She states that she is the principal of the certain companies that were parties to promissory agreements with Shepherds LLC, but that these companies only entered into agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing Shepherds LLC’s internet ad while physically located in Georgia. (Id., ¶6; FAC, Exs. 3-12.) She states that on behalf of those contracting companies (not including SNC), she undertook all acts while physically in Georgia and that all the agreements themselves are promissory notes which are secured by real estate outside of California. (English Decl., ¶¶7-8.) Ms. English states that the agreements do not call for or agree to jurisdiction in California as to her individually, with the companies, or with SNC. (Id., ¶9.) She states SNC does not have a registered agent for service of process in California and does not maintain a bank account in California, a post office box in California, real estate in California, or a telephone number in California. (Id., ¶¶10-14.)
However, a review of Exhibit 9 of the FAC shows that SNC is a party to a promissory note with Shepherds LLC. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above regarding Ms. English’s motion to quash, the Court finds that the same reasoning applies to SNC. As such, the motion is denied.
DISCUSSION RE WSRE SOUTH CAROLINA LLC, SELLING N. RICHMOND, LLC, AND SELLING REAL ESTATE, LLC’S MOTION
WSRE South Carolina, LLC aka WSRE S. Carolina, LLC (“WSRE SC”), Selling N. Richmond, LLC (“SNR”), and Selling Real Estate, LLC (“SRE”) move to quash the service of the summons and complaint on them for lack of personal jurisdiction and to be dismissed from the action.
Ms. English provides her declaration in support of the motion. She states that WSRE S, SNC, and SRE are South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia LLCs, they do not have an office or own property in California, have not conducted business in California, and have not placed any ads for business in California. (English Decl., ¶¶2-3.) She states that these entities only entered into agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing a Shepherds LLC interest ad while physically located in Georgia and that all of her actions undertaken on behalf of the entities were done while she was physically in Georgia. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) She states the promissory note agreements secured real estate outside of California. (Id., ¶6.) She states the agreements do not call or agree to jurisdiction in California for herself or the entities. (Id., ¶7.) Ms. English states that the entities do not have a registered agent for service of process in California and do not maintain a bank account in California, a post office box in California, real estate in California, or a telephone number in California. (Id., ¶¶8-12.)
For the same reasons discussed above regarding Ms. English’s motion to quash, the Court finds that the same reasoning applies to WSRE SC, SNC, and SRE. As such, the motion is denied.
DISCUSSION RE CONSORTIUM TITLE, LLC AND WHOLESALE LISTINGS LTD. CO. LLC’S MOTION
Consortium Title LLC (“Consortium”) and Wholesale Listings Ltd. Co. LLC (“Wholesale”) move to quash the service of the summons and complaint on them for lack of personal jurisdiction and to be dismissed from the action. They argue that they not domiciled in California, do not consent to jurisdiction in California, do not have sufficient contacts in California, do not conduct business in California, and have not purposefully availed themselves to California.
In support of the motion, Consortium and Wholesale provide the declaration of Ms. English. She states that Consortium and Wholesale are Georgia LLCs, they do not have an office or own property in California, have not conducted business in California, and have not placed any ads for business in California. (English Decl., ¶¶2-3.) She states that Consortium and Wholesale did not contract with any Plaintiffs in this matter and is not a party to any underlying agreements attached in the FAC. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) She states that for her other companies (see FAC, Exs. 3-12), the companies only entered into agreements with Shepherds LLC after seeing Shepherds LLC’s internet ad while physically located in Georgia. (Id., ¶6.) She states that on behalf of the companies (not including Consortium and Wholesale), she undertook all acts while physically in Georgia and that all the agreements themselves are promissory notes which are secured by real estate outside of California. (Id., ¶¶7-8.) Ms. English states that the agreements do not call for or agree to jurisdiction in California as to her individually, with the companies, or with Consortium and Wholesale. (Id., ¶9.) She states Consortium and Wholesale do not have a registered agent for service of process in California and do not maintain a bank account in California, a post office box in California, real estate in California, or a telephone number in California. (Id., ¶¶10-14.)
A review of the promissory notes shows that no agreement was entered between Shepherds LLC and Consortium, or between Shepherds LLC and Wholesale.
While Consortium and Wholesale may be associated with Ms. English or the other companies that entered into promissory notes with Shepherds LLC, Plaintiffs have not shown how Consortium and Wholesale are involved with the facts of this action or how they are subject to general and/or specific jurisdiction in the State of California. Thus, the motion is granted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant Aneaka English’s motion to quash the service of the summons and dismiss the complaint is denied. Defendant Aneaka English is directed to file a responsive pleading within 10 days of this order.
Defendant Wholesale Real Estate LLC’s motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the complaint against it is granted.
Defendant WSRE Florida LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, and Selling N. Atlanta LLC’s motion to quash the service of the summons and dismiss the complaint is denied. Defendant WSRE Florida LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, and Selling N. Atlanta LLC are directed to file a responsive pleading within 10 days of this order.
Defendant E.S. Real Estate Consortium Corp.’s motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the complaint against it is granted.
Defendant Selling N. Charleston, LLC’s motion to quash the service of the summons and dismiss the complaint is denied. Defendant is directed to file a responsive pleading within 10 days of this order.
Defendant WSRE South Carolina, LLC aka WSRE S. Carolina, LLC, Selling N. Richmond, LLC, and Selling Real Estate, LLC’s motion to quash the service of the summons and dismiss the complaint is denied. Defendants are directed to file a responsive pleading within 10 days of this order.
Defendants Consortium Title LLC and Wholesale Listings Ltd. Co. LLC’s motion to quash service of the summons and dismiss the complaint against it is granted.
Defendants shall provide notice of this order.