Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV12176, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12176    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept 68 

Date: 3-22-24 c/f 2-15-24

Case 23STCV12176

Trial Date: Not Set

GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Sherman Escrow, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, Quinn Real Estate, LLC, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Linda Martinez befriended defendant Oscar Parada through routine work interactions. In the routine course of conversation, Plaintiff mentioned a home in Tulare County on the verge of condemnation and requiring rehabilitation work. Parada subsequently offered to connect Plaintiff with “property developers and loan officers” in order to tear down the home and rebuild.

Plaintiff alleges a 2016 arranged $150,000 cash out refinance on her home in Los Angeles to be subsequently used for the Tulare County home with defendants Sherman Escrow, Anabel Aguilera, Koko Polosajian, Hong Tang, Joel Sanchez and Arthur Boyadzhyan. According to Plaintiff, the purported loan was in fact “fraudulent and forged,” whereby Defendants utilized their access to Plaintiff’s personal identification and financial information in order to execute a series of smaller loans secured against the properties. The secured loans led to foreclosures of one or both properties.

On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Conversion, Fraudulent Deceit, Breach of Contract, Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Elder Abuse. On September 27, 2023, the clerk entered a default as to Parada.

On November 15, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer of Sherman Escrow with leave to amend. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Conversion, Fraudulent Deceit, Breach of Contract, Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, and Elder Abuse. On December 26, 2023, and January 16, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Brenda Camacho and Hong Tang. On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Luis Rivas and Mercene Bonilla. On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Koko Polosajian, Quinn Real Estate, LLC, Nadel & Associates, and Russell J. Nadel.

RULING: Off-Calendar.

Defendants Sherman Escrow, Inc., Anabel Aguilera, Joel Sanchez, and Ingrid Sheikh, move for a determination of good faith settlement with plaintiff Linda Martinez. Moving parties and Plaintiffs agree to a $10,000 settlement of all claims. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. Moving defendants filed three separate proofs of service filed all showing either electronic or mail service on January 11, 18 and 19, 2024.

The proof of service on Quinn Real Estate, LLC, Nadel & Associates, Russell J. Nadel, Koko Polosajian, Hong Tang, Luis D. Rivas, Absolute Law Group, Brenda M. Gonzalez Camacho, Arthur Boyadzhyan, and Wegman & Associates was filed on February 5, 2024, and indicates

service by mail on January 19, 2024. Monday February 12, 2024, is a court holiday, and therefore cannot count towards the 16 court days for determining timely service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 12a, 12b, 12c.) The motion was served by mail exactly 16 day and four calendar days before the February 15, 2024, hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

Given the untimely service by mail on the hearing date, the court ruled in part: “The court therefore finds the motion untimely served, and continues the hearing until Friday March 22, 2024. Moving parties must serve new notice of the hearing on all parties. Monday February 19, 2024, is also a court holiday for purposes of determining the next planned service date should counsel wait until the last day possible for service of the new hearing date.” The court ordered Defendants “to give notice and file proof of service of said notice within 7 calendar days.” The minute order shows counsel for moving parties was present at the hearing.

The court electronic filing system shows no new notice of hearing filed within seven (7) days of the hearing or even before the tentative ruling publication cutoff. Given the appearance and written order, the court assumes moving parties elected to disregard the order. The March 20, 2024, dismissals of additional defendants in no way rectifies the lack of notice to ALL remaining parties.

Rather than continue the motion a second time, the court takes the motion off-calendar. Moving parties must reserve, file and timely serve a new motion on ALL parties, if relief remains sought.

Case Management Conference and two OSCs re Sanctions set for May 7, 2024.

Moving Parties to give notice to all parties.