Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: KC068076, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC068076    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: G

Defendants Indus Manager Corp., Indus-Chino Hills, and Rahul Paliwal’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment

Respondent: Plaintiffs Joseph Hourany, M.D., Veronique Hourany, M.D., and Urvashi Sura, M.D.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Indus Manager Corp., Indus-Chino Hills, and Rahul Paliwal’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a failed real estate development project in Chino Hills. On December 2, 2015, Plaintiffs Joseph Hourany, M.D., Veronique Hourany, M.D., and Urvashi Sura, M.D. filed a complaint against Defendants Rahul Paliwal, Yogesh K. Paliwal, M.D., Indus Manager Corp. (Indus Manager), Indus-Chino Hills, L.P. (Indus-Chino Hills), and Does 1-50, alleging (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) fraud, (4) violation of corporate securities laws, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) accounting, and (7) injunctive relief.

On October 1, 2018, the Houranys and Sura filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against the same defendants as well as Glenn Taxman and Much Shelist, P.C., alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) concealment, (4) violation of corporate securities laws, (5) civil conspiracy, (6) negligent misrepresentation, (7) accounting, and (8) injunctive relief.

On November 27, 2018, Indus Manager and Indus-Chino Hills filed a cross-complaint against the Houranys, Sura, and Roes 1-50, alleging contractual indemnity.

On July 8, 2020, after a jury trial and verdict, the court entered judgment in favor of the Houranys and Sura against Paliwal, Indus Manager, and Indus-Chino Hills. Subsequently, the parties appealed the court’s judgment and post-trial rulings. On November 2, 2022, the Court of Appeal affirmed the court’s judgment in part and reversed in part.

After participating in mediation on April 6, 2023, the Houranys, Sura, Paliwal, Indus Manager, and Indus-Chino Hills entered into a settlement agreement.

On June 30, 2023, Indus Manager, Indus-Chino Hills, and Paliwal filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for October 12 along with a case management conference, further status conference re: settlement, status conference re: representation of the Paliwals, and motions for attorney fees and taxing of costs. A final status conference is also scheduled for August 28, 2024, along with a jury trial on September 10.

ANALYSIS

Indus Manager, Indus-Chino Hills, and Paliwal move to set aside the court’s judgment against them on the grounds that they have satisfied the terms of their settlement agreement with the Houranys and Sura. For the following reasons, the court DENIES their motion.

In this case, although Indus Manager, Indus-Chino Hills, and Paliwal claim the parties have agreed to set aside the judgment in this action pursuant to a settlement agreement, they have not provided the court with such a stipulation. In fact, the Houranys and Sura filed an opposition to this motion that alleges Indus Manager, Indus-Chino Hills, and Paliwal have not satisfied the terms of their agreement.

Accordingly, their motion is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Indus Manager, Indus-Chino Hills, and Paliwal’s motion to set aside judgment is DENIED without prejudice.