Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21GDCV01353, Date: 2024-11-08 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.

Warning regarding electronic appearances
:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.


THANK YOU!





Case Number: 21GDCV01353    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

andrew bergman, et al.,   

 

                        Plaintiffs,

            v.

 

isaac blocher, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.: 21GDCV01353

 

  Hearing Date: November 8, 2024

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel further responses   

 

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.  (SAC, ¶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’ 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 second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed September 5, 2023, 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.

B.     Cross-Complaint

On October 20, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Aneaka English aka Aneaka Ukah, Selling N. Atlanta, LLC, Selling N. Charleston, LLC, Selling N. Richmond, LLC, WSRE Florida, LLC, WSRE Georgia, LLC, and WSRE South Carolina LLC (“Cross-Complainants”) filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants 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, Carlos Zoller, Isaac Blocher, Kristie Blocher, Blocher Holdings, LLC, and Shepherds, LLC.  The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) accounting; (2) declaratory relief; (3) violation of Business & Professions Code, § 17200 et seq.; and (4) interpleader.

On February 16, 2024, the Court sustained without leave to amend Cross-Defendants 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’s demurrer to and granted without leave to amend the motion to strike the cross-complaint filed on October 20, 2023.  That same day, the Court dismissed without prejudice the cross-complaint as to these Cross-Defendants.  

On October 25, 2024, the Court granted without leave to amend Shepherds’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The same day, the Court dismissed with prejudice the cross-complaint as to Shepherds.

Thus, the only remaining Cross-Defendants are Isaac Blocher, Kristie Blocher, and Blocher Holdings, LLC. 

C.     Relevant Background re: Bankruptcy

On September 23, 2024, Defendants Isaac Blocher and Kristie Blocher filed a Notice of Bankruptcy (Chapter 7). 

On October 3, 2024, Defendants WSRE S. Carolina LLC, WSRE Georgia LLC, and WSRE Florida LLC each filed a Notice of Bankruptcy (Chapter 7). 

On October 18, 2024, Defendant Aneaka Ukah aka Aneaka English filed a Notice of Bankruptcy (Chapter 11).

According to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay in actions against the debtor, enforcement of judgment against a debtor, any acts to obtain possession of property, any act to create/perfect/enforce a lien against property of the estate or against the property of the debtor, to collect assets against the debtor, to setoff any debt owing to the debtor, or commencing or continuing a proceeding before the United States Tax Court. 

D.    Motions on Calendar

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew Bondarczuk filed a motion to compel Defendant Selling N. Atlanta, LLC’s (“SNA”) further responses to Requests for Admissions – set one (“RFA”).  On October 28, 2024, SNA filed an opposition brief.

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew Bondarczuk filed a motion to compel Defendant Selling N. Charleston, LLC’s (“SNC”) further responses to RFA.  On October 28, 2024, SNC filed an opposition brief. 

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew Bondarczuk filed a motion to compel Defendant Selling N. Richmond, LLC’s (“SNR”) further responses to RFA.  On October 28, 2024, SNR filed an opposition brief. 

On October 30, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew Bondarczuk filed a combined reply brief fr the three motions. 

DISCUSSION

A.    SNA

Plaintiff moves to compel SNA’s further response to RFA Nos. 1-32. 

In opposition, SNA argues that its counsel, Na’il Benjamin, is unable to address the merits of the motion due to a conflict of interest and that he has filed motions to be relieved as counsel.  SNA states that it anticipates that it, as well as the remaining defense entities, will file for bankruptcy.

There is no substantive opposition by SNA.  There is also no notice of bankruptcy filed as to SNA.  As such, the Court will consider the substantive merits of the motion to compel further responses.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s separate statement.  To each of the 32 RFAs, SNA objected on the grounds that the RFAs were vague and ambiguous.  For example, RFA No. 1 asks SNA to admit the authenticity of Exhibit 1.  SNA objected that the RFA was vague and ambiguous, and called for speculation, but responded with a denial.  RFA No. 2 asks SNA to admit that it entered the March 5, 2018 Note with Shepherds.  SNA objected that “this request is vague (what is a NOTE?) ambiguous (how do you enter such a thing?), calls for speculation, and it calls for a legal conclusion (assuming entered is supposed to be ‘entered into’). Also, it is unclear what constitutes ‘the MARCH 5, 2018, NOTE.’ Denied.”  The RFA requests define “March 5, 2018 Note” as the promissory note entered into between Shepherds and SNA for $150,000, attached to the SAC.  The remainder of the RFAs likewise raise the same objections and then deny the RFAs. 

The RFAs as asked are not vague and ambiguous.  The terms are defined at the beginning of the RFAs requests and provide where the documents are attached for reference.  (Kramer Decl., Ex. 2 [RFA requests].)  To the extent that the objections state that the RFAs call for speculation, it is unclear what SNA means by this objection and SNA has not substantiated its objection based on speculation.  As such, the motion to compel SNA’s further responses to the RFAs is granted.  SNA is ordered to provide further responses without objection. 

B.     Plaintiff requests $8,520 in sanctions against SNA and Mr. Benjamin.  The request for sanctions is granted in the total amount of $1,000, plus $60 in filing fees for this motion, as it does not appear to have been a complicated motion to compose and is essentially the same as the motions directed against SNC and SNR. SNC

Plaintiff moves to compel SNC’s further response to RFA Nos. 1-11.  SNC makes similar opposition arguments as SNA. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s separate statement.  Similar to the motion directed against SNA, SNC objected on the grounds that the RFAs were vague and ambiguous and called for speculation; SNC also responded with denials.  The same analysis regarding the motion directed against SNA applies here with respect to the RFAs directed against SNC.  As such, the motion to compel SNC’s further responses to the RFAs is granted.  SNC is ordered to provide further responses without objection. 

Plaintiff requests $8,520 in sanctions against SNC and Mr. Benjamin.  The request for sanctions is granted in the total amount of $1,000, plus $60 in filing fees for this motion.

C.     SNR

Plaintiff moves to compel SNR’s further response to RFA Nos. 1-33.  SNR makes similar opposition arguments as SNA and SNC. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s separate statement.  Similar to the motion directed against SNA and SNC, SNR objected on the grounds that the RFAs were vague and ambiguous and called for speculation; SNR also responded with denials, but did not waive the objections, thereby necessitating these motions.   The same analysis regarding the motion directed against SNA applies here with respect to the RFAs directed against SNR.  As such, the motion to compel SNR’s further responses to the RFAs is granted.  SNR is ordered to provide further responses without objection. 

Plaintiff requests $8,520 in sanctions against SNR and Mr. Benjamin.  The request for sanctions is granted in the total amount of $1,000, plus $60 in filing fees for this motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Matthew Bondarczuk filed a motion to compel Defendant Selling N. Atlanta, LLC’s further responses to Requests for Admissions – set one is granted.  Defendant Selling N. Atlanta, LLC and its counsel of record Na’il Benjamin, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.Plaintiff Matthew Bondarczuk filed a motion to compel Defendant Selling N. Charleston, LLC’s further responses to Requests for Admissions – set one is granted. Defendant Selling N. Charleston, LLC and its counsel of record Na’il Benjamin, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff Matthew Bondarczuk filed a motion to compel Defendant Selling N. Richmond, LLC’s further responses to Requests for Admissions – set one is granted.  Defendant Selling N. Richmond, LLC and its counsel of record Na’il Benjamin, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendants are ordered to provide further responses within 30 days of notice of this order.  

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

 

DATED: November 8, 2024                                       ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court