Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: KC070042, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: KC070042 Hearing Date: March 25, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Bharat Patel, et al. v. Dr. Prakash Patel
Motion for Award of Incidental Compensation or, in the Alternative, an Order for an Accounting
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court DENIES the motion for award of incidental compensation or, in the alternative, an order for an accounting.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of the Court’s order.
BACKGROUND
This is a real property dispute. On February 14, 2018, Plaintiffs Bharat Patel (Bharat) and Dinesh Patel (Dinesh) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action (KC070042) against Dr. Prakash Patel and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for breach of settlement agreement and fraud. On March 16, 2020, Prakash Patel (Prakash) and Hardika Patel (Hardika) (collectively, Defendants) filed a separate action (20STCV10801) against Bharat Patel, Dinesh Patel, and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for voiding and rescission of first settlement agreement, voiding and rescission of second settlement agreement, voiding and rescission of third settlement agreement, fraud (misrepresentation), fraud (false promise), fraud (concealment), negligent misrepresentation, voiding and rescission of first settlement agreement (fraud), voiding and rescission of second settlement agreement (fraud), and voiding and rescission of third settlement agreement (fraud). The actions were later consolidated on June 23, 2020, with KC070042 being designated as the lead case.
On July 27, 2020, Bharat and Dinesh filed a cross-complaint against Prakash and Hardika. The current operative pleading is the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SACC), filed on March 13, 2023, which alleges causes of action for breach of settlement agreement, fraud (misrepresentation), fraud (concealment), conspiracy to commit fraud, and declaratory relief.
On October 10, 2022, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Bharat and Dinesh on Prakash and Hardika’s complaint.
On January 19, 2024, after a four-day non-jury trial, concurrent with a jury trial, the Court issued a statement of decision in favor of Plaintiffs awarding specific performance.
On February 20, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants.
On February 29, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for an award of incidental compensation or, in the alternative, an order for an accounting. On March 12, 2024, Defendants opposed the motion. On March 18, 2024, Plaintiffs replied.
REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) But the Court takes judicial notice only as to the existence, content, and authenticity of such documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted therein. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)
DISCUSSION
Summary of Arguments
Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court awarding them incidental compensation in the amounts of either $368,615.61 or $283,914.01. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek an accounting. Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to full performance of the underlying settlement agreement, including recovery of payments made on the subject property from November 2018 through February 2020, specifically loan payments on the Wells Fargo Loan and the Amalgamated Bank Loan, plus other expenses, for a total of $160,538.48. They also seek $283,914.01 for other payments made in connection with the subject property from February 2020 onward, less the $75,836.88 Hardika paid. Plaintiffs alternatively seek an accounting for incidental damages, comprised of interest on the two aforementioned loans, property taxes, maintenance, and property insurance, all amounting to $283,914.01.
In opposition, Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ motion is substantively unsupported and that an accounting would be procedurally improper at this stage of the action. Defendants contend Plaintiffs should have presented evidence for an accounting at trial, but they did not do so, and that Plaintiffs ultimately declined to request any further relief at trial. Defendants further argue that any arguments and evidence regarding damages or compensation should have been submitted during trial, and that the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding damages and compensation during trial.
Defendants also argue that the Court’s basis for previously denying Defendants’ motion for refund of moneys, i.e., the Court’s inability to amend the judgment, applies equally to Plaintiffs’ motion here. Defendants also argue that an accounting is not proper since trial has concluded, and argues that the Court asked Plaintiffs’ counsel on at least three occasions at trial if Plaintiffs were seeking any other relief or damages, but that Plaintiffs’ counsel stated there was no other relief to be sought. (Lew Decl. ¶ 5.)
Analysis
The Court finds this motion to be similar to Defendants’ previous motion for refund of moneys paid, which the Court denied. (Order Re: Tentative Ruling (3/6/24).) Plaintiffs’ motion also does not cite any statutes or other procedural law as the basis for this motion, and thus it is unclear under what legal authority Plaintiffs may bring it post entry of Judgment. The Court further notes that judgment was entered in this case on February 20, 2024. (Judgment (2/20/24).) Given the entry of judgment, and the parties’ continued dispute over who bears responsibility for which payments and reimbursements, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion as a motion to amend the judgment.
“While a court has power to correct mistakes in its records and proceedings, and to set aside judgments and orders inadvertently made, which are not actually the result of the exercise of judgment, it has no power, having once made its decision after regular submission, to set aside or amend for judicial error. [Citations.]” (Stevens v. Superior Ct. in & for San Joaquin Cnty. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 110, 112.)
As noted above, the Court entered judgment in this matter on February 20, 2024. Plaintiffs do not seek the Court to correct minor issues in the judgment. Rather, they seek the Court to make further awards with respect to incidental compensation or an accounting based on expenses incurred in connection with the underlying dispute. As noted before, it is too late to raise these issues, especially now that the judgment has been entered. (See Order Re: Tentative Ruling (3/6/24); Stevens, supra, 7 Cal.2d at p. 112.)
Plaintiffs also present no evidence that the judgment was inadvertently made or that it was not the result of the exercise of judgment. (See Stevens, supra, 7 Cal.2d at p. 112.) In fact, the decision upon which the judgment was entered was made after a four-day non-jury trial. (Statement of Decision (1/19/24).) Plaintiffs present no evidence of errors at trial or in the proceedings of the trial either. The judgment has been entered and it cannot be changed for the reasons Plaintiffs seek.
Moreover, as Defendants correctly argue, Plaintiffs did not present evidence in support of or otherwise articulate any bases at trial for the Court to award Plaintiffs the incidental compensation sought here or an accounting. The Court asked Plaintiffs during the trial whether they sought any other relief, and they indicated they did not. (See Lew Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs should have addressed these issues of compensation arising from “delay” damages at trial, but Plaintiffs did not do so. (Cf. Bravo v. Buelow (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 208, 211 fn. 1 [finding no error that although the plaintiff failed to specifically plead “delay” damages, plaintiff’s counsel advised on two separate occasions at trial that he was seeking delay damages and the case was tried on that theory by both sides without objection.]) The Court also notes that the SACC does not specifically request “delay” damages, or an accounting for that matter. (See Id.; SACC, Prayer for Relief, 12:19-13:5.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs have forfeited their right to recover any such incidental compensation or an accounting at this stage of this action.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion for award of incidental compensation or, in the alternative, an order for an accounting.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of the Court’s order.