Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00856, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV00856 Hearing Date: January 18, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/18/23
Case #22CHCV00856
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Application filed 1/4/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ha Hoang Nguyen
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Amy Jam and Moshen Haddad
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The request for preliminary injunction will
be granted as set forth below.
This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff Ha
Hoang Nguyen (Plaintiff) and Defendants Amy Jam (Jam) and Moshen Haddad
(Haddad) (collectively, Defendants) regarding the rights to real property
located at 20516 Shelley Lane, Porter Ranch, California 91326 (the Property).
Plaintiff contends that she is the sole owner of the
property which she allowed her then friends, Defendants, to rent. (Nguyen ¶¶8-12). On 12/27/22, a title officer with California
Best Title contacted Plaintiff to confirm that she planned to sell the Property
because it was in escrow. (Id.
¶12). The title officer informed
Plaintiff that the sale was being made by Jam, who held a power of attorney for
Plaintiff. (Id. ¶13). Plaintiff contends that she never executed a
power of attorney in favor of either Defendant and never authorized either Defendant
to sell, encumber, hypothecate, or otherwise transfer any interest in the
Property. (Id. ¶¶11, 13-14).
The proposed sale of the property pursuant to the power
of attorney was to Noble Elevations, LLC of which Haddad is the sole organizer
and agent for service of process. (Frish
Decl. ¶¶6, 8, Ex.1, 3, 4). Plaintiff has
been informed that the sale transaction was cancelled by the escrow
company. (Frish Decl. ¶7).
On 12/30/22, Plaintiff’s attorney requested that
Defendants stipulate to the relief requested in this application. (Frish Decl. ¶9). Defendants did not enter the
stipulation. (Id. ¶10). Therefore, on 1/4/23, Plaintiff filed an ex
parte application requesting a temporary restraining order and the setting of
an order to show cause re preliminary injunction: (1) Prohibiting Defendants
from taking any action to transfer, sell, encumber, or hypothecate any interest
in the real property located at 20516 Shelley Lane Porter Ranch, California,
91326 (the Property); (2) Directing Defendants to cancel any pending
transaction in which any interest in the Property is to be transferred, sold,
encumbered, or hypothecated; and (3) Directing Defendants to rescind any
pending transaction in which any interest in the Property is to be transferred,
sold, encumbered, or hypothecated.
On 1/6/23, the Court granted a temporary restraining
order and set an order to show cause re preliminary injunction for
1/18/23. Defendants have filed a
response to the application.
In the response, Defendants contend that they and
Plaintiff entered an agreement by which Plaintiff agreed that Defendants would
live in and manage the property and upon completion of all construction,
Plaintiff would sell the Property and split the profits remaining after the
mortgage was paid off with Defendants. Defendants
further contend that Plaintiff did execute a power of attorney in favor of Jam
which authorized Jam to sell the Property to anyone.
The response further states that Jam has cancelled the
transaction regarding the Property and in order to secure Defendants’ claimed
rights regarding the Property, Defendants have served Plaintiff with a Notice
of Pendency regarding the Property because Plaintiff refused to agree “to
prevent any transaction over the Property.”
Defendants further indicate that they intend to file a cross-complaint
against Plaintiff.
The response is not supported by any admissible
evidence. While there are exhibits attached
to the response, they are not authenticated by any declaration. Additionally, the response does not present
any real argument in opposition to the preliminary injunction requested.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of
prevailing on the merits of her claims at trial and that Plaintiff will likely
suffer greater harm if the relief requested is denied than Defendants will
likely suffer if the preliminary injunction is issued.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that relief requested
is warranted. CCP 529(a) provides:
On granting an injunction, the
court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the
effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not
exceeding an amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the
injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to
the injunction. Within five days after the service of the injunction, the
person enjoined may object to the undertaking. If the court determines that the
applicant's undertaking is insufficient and a sufficient undertaking is not
filed within the time required by statute, the order granting the injunction
must be dissolved.
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants discuss the issue of an
undertaking. The response seems to imply
that Defendants’ negotiation skills provided Plaintiff with a value of over
$530,000 and that Defendants have invested over $1,000,000.00 in the
property. (See Response, p.2:13-p.3:5). However, as noted above, Defendants have
provided no evidence to support this contention. Therefore, at the hearing, the Court will
discuss with counsel for the parties the appropriate amount for the undertaking to be
posted by Plaintiff.