Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20SMCV00872, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 20SMCV00872    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: I

This case is here yet again for the court to resolve another in the seemingly endless disputes between the parties.  At the last hearing, the court was informed that an investment group had agreed to buy the art in question for a sum sufficient to pay plaintiff in full (and the expenses King’s has incurred).  As a part of that deal, plaintiff was to enter into a contract with that entity.  The court directed that if that failed, the auction would go forward.  The parties disputed whether King’s needed to take physical possession of the artwork.  The court delayed that possession for two reasons.  First, King’s has not provided estimates.  If the estimates are high enough such that (even at the low end of the range) there is excess money, the court believes that defendants can hold back the surplus art.  Second, with the private sale about to go forward, it could add an unnecessary complication. 

The date of the private sale has been postponed, apparently, with a new date of no later than February 29, 2024.  As the court could have predicted, each side blames the other for the problem.  Plaintiff contends that the whole purchase is not likely to be consummated ever.  They note that the name keeps changing, its representative has been replaced, there is no proof of funds, the closing date has been moved, and defendants got an advance of $500,000.  Accordingly, plaintiff wants the auction to go forward and King’s to get the artwork and to have the $500,000 turned over.  Defendants contend that plaintiff is the problem.  According to the defense, the only thing holding up the sale is that there is no contract between the buyer and plaintiff.  The reason for that, defendant contends, is that plaintiff insists not only on getting paid in full, but also on owning 10% of the buyer. 

In the court’s mind, if what defendants say is true about the negotiations, plaintiff is not acting properly and the court would be inclined to allow the parties to keep negotiating.  A new hearing will be set for October, at which time we will see the status of the case.  The auction would be cancelled with plaintiff to bear any expenses King’s requires.  On the other hand, if plaintiff is not insisting on such a term but rather is looking only to a vanilla contract in which they are assured that they will be paid in full (and King’s will be paid, too), then the court has the same reservations as does plaintiff and the court would be inclined to view this as yet another in a line of failed promises of private sales made by defendants over time.

The court will inquire, but the parties would be well advised to come to terms by themselves.  The status conference statements were filed yesterday, as is typical in this case.  Last minute filings to report problems even after there have been agreements.