Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV24405, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV24405 Hearing Date: April 11, 2025 Dept: 82
Daniel K. Roberts, et al. Case No. 23STCV24405
v.
Hearing:
April 11, 2025
Location:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Department:
82
Steve
Davis, et al. Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch
[Tentative] Order Granting Motion for Leave
to File New Action
on Behalf of Stardust Mobile Estates, LLC
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Daniel K. Roberts (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order granting him leave
to file a new action, derivatively, on behalf of Stardust Mobile Estates, LLC
(“Stardust”), as the nominal defendant, against Ann Marie Luna, aka Ann Marie
Soluna, and Soluna Enterprises, Inc. (“Luna” and “Soluna Enterprises”). Although the court appointed a receiver over
Stardust, the receiver takes no position on this motion. None of the defendants opposes this
motion. Therefore, the motion is granted
with the understanding that Plaintiff might not be compensated for his
attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
DISCUSSION
On
June 26, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a
receiver to take control over the assets and operations of Stardust. The Order for (1) Appointing Receiver (2)
Preliminary Injunction (“Appointment Order”), filed June 26, 2024, authorizes
the Receivers “[t]o institute ancillary proceedings in this state or other
states as is necessary to manage, operate, and carry out the business STARDUST and
take control of and collect its accounts and assets.” (Appointment Order ¶ 3.m) In addition, the Appointment Order enjoins
Stardust and any other persons seeking to enforce a claim on behalf of Stardust
from commencing or prosecuting any lawsuit or proceeding in the name of
Stardust “[e]xcept by leave of this Court.”
(Id. ¶ 5.a.) Accordingly, the court has discretion to grant
Plaintiff leave to file a derivative complaint on behalf of Stardust. (Lesser & Son v. Seymour (1950) 35
Cal.2d 494, 499-500.)
Plaintiff
now seeks leave of court to file a derivative complaint, on behalf of Stardust
as the nominal defendant, against Ann Marie Luna and Soluna Enterprises,
Inc. (Bloom Decl. ¶ 2 [proposed
complaint].) Plaintiff’s attorney, David
Bloom, summarizes the two primary claims in the proposed derivative complaint,
as follows:
Recission based
upon constructive fraud. This claim would be based upon the fiduciary duty owed
by Luna to Stardust LLC by reason of her employment by Stardust LLC to perform
administrative services for it. The claim would be based upon Luna’s acceptance
of $68,000.00 in funds from Davis and/or Steve Davis Team, which in fact
belonged to Stardust LLC, for her use in purporting to purchase the Space 63
mobile home from Stardust LLC, and purchasing the Space 63 mobile home for less
than fair market value and entering into a purported lease of Space 63, for
less than fair rental value.
Damages for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty. This claim is based upon Luna and Soluna Enterprises’
fiduciary duty owing to Stardust LLC by reason of their employment pursuant to
an independent contractor agreement to perform administrative services for
Stardust LLC, and their breach of that duty by Luna’s acceptance of $68,000.00
in funds from Davis and/or Steve Davis Team, which in fact belonged to Stardust
LLC, for her use in purporting to purchase the Space 63 mobile home from
Stardust LLC, and purchasing the Space 63 mobile home for less than fair market
value and entering into a purported lease of Space 63, for less than fair
rental value, accepting compensation in money and free rent and utilities,
which far exceeded any reasonable value of any services rendered by them, and
their failure to perform substantial services for Stardust LLC, while still
accepting substantial compensation for such supposed services.
(Id.
¶ 5.) Bloom explains that he
received documents from the receiver supporting these claims. (Id. ¶ 6.) Bloom’s declaration demonstrates sufficient
good cause for Plaintiff to pursue the proposed derivative complaint, which
could possibly result in a financial recovery or other relief for the benefit
of Stardust and the receivership estate.
On
January 31, 2025, the receiver informed Bloom that he does not believe it is a
good use of Stardust’s resources for the receiver to bring an action against
Luna and Soluna Enterprises. (Id. ¶ 4.) However, the receiver takes no position on
this issue and does not oppose Plaintiff pursuing this case on his own. (Ibid.) None of the defendants has filed an
opposition to this motion.
Based
upon the foregoing, the court grants the motion and authorizes Plaintiff to
file the proposed derivative complaint.
However, the court’s decision to grant this motion does not guarantee
that Plaintiff will be compensated for his attorneys’ fees and expenses, even
if there is a recovery in the underlying case.
The court will resolve all claims against the receivership estate at the
appropriate time and provides notice that Plaintiff might not be compensated
for his attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses given other potential claims
and priorities.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon the foregoing,
Plaintiff’s motion for Leave
to File New Action on Behalf of Stardust Mobile Estates, LLC is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and
file proof of service with the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: April 11,
2025
Stephen
I. Goorvitch
Superior
Court Judge