Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case BC605281 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: BC605281, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC605281 Hearing Date: January 9, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 9, 2023

CASE: Albert Barrios, et al. v. Joel Leebove, et al.

CASE NO.: BC605281

TENTATIVE RULING FOR STATUS CONFERENCE RE PLAINTIFF’S DISSOLUTION AND ACCOUNTING CLAIMS

On December 8, 2022, the Court directed the parties to submit position statements on whether the parties had stipulated that Plaintiff’s fifth through eighth causes of action for dissolution of partnership, appointment of receiver and accounting would be tried in a separate phase of trial following a first phase that was concluded in 2022 and, if so, whether any of those causes of action survive the Court’s rulings on Plaintiff’s claims resolved during the 2022 bench trial. The Court set a status conference on January 9, 2023 to address these issues.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes that there is no basis for mounting a second phase of trial on Plaintiff’s fifth through eighth causes of action. As noted in the Court’ statement of decision, these claims were set for trial during the bench trial that commenced on February 14, 2022 and were resolved against Plaintiff during that trial.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, there was no stipulation dictating that these claims were reserved for a later phase of trial. Indeed, the stipulation on which Plaintiff relies explicitly states his own view that the first stage of that phase of trial would include Plaintiff’s presentation of “his prima facie case that 123 Los Robles LLC should be dissolved” and “his prima facie case that he is entitled to a (sic) accounting under the terms of the Operating Agreement and California.” (Stipulation to Handle Matters in Phases for Trial, filed 4/28/21, p. 3.) In Defendant’s additional suggestion regarding the defense stage of the initial phase of trial, Defendants indicated that they would “present their liability defenses to any remaining claims” after the Court’s ruling on their anticipated CCP section 631.8 motion, and “[t]he Court shall then render its decision on liability as to all of Plaintiff’s claims by issuing a written Statement of Decision.” (Id., p. 3 [Emphasis added].) It is clear then that there was no stipulation to reserve Plaintiff’s fifth through eighth causes of action for a later phase of trial. To the contrary, the language in the quoted sections reflecting the positions of both sides shows that all parties understood that these claims would be tried in the bench trial that was concluded in 2022.

Plaintiff’s recently raised argument in opposition to this plan is grounded on language in the parties’ stipulation that refers to a Phase 3 of trial dealing with “Plaintiff’s Proof of Damages,” which phase was described by Defendants as involving proof of “all alleged damages for any claims not dismissed or otherwise adjudicated against Plaintiff.” (Id., p. 4.) This part of the stipulation does not support Plaintiff’s contention that there was any stipulation to carve out the dissolution and accounting claims for a separate phase of trial.

Even if the language of the stipulation could be read as an agreement to reserve the accounting claim for a later trial (see id., p. 4.), the Court did not adopt this approach for the resolution of Plaintiff’s claims and instead scheduled them all for trial in a single proceeding. (See Ruling, filed April 30, 2021, pp. 9-10.) Plaintiff acknowledged this ruling in its pretrial papers. (See Plaintiff’s Supplemental Trial Brief and Issues to be Tried at the Upcoming Trial, p. 2 [the issues to be tried included “Is the Court required to dissolve and then wind up 123 Los Robles LLC?”].) In any event, the Court has the ultimate authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 128 to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, even if the Court’s decision about how to proceed is different from a stipulated approach offered by the parties. (Code Civ. Proc. Section 128(a)(3).)

In summary, Plaintiff’s fifth through eighth causes of action for dissolution of partnership, appointment of receiver and accounting were set for trial during the bench trial that started in February 2022. As noted in the tentative statement of decision, based on the evidence submitted at trial, Plaintiff did not met his burden of proof with respect to any of these claims. In that decision, the Court explained:

“Plaintiff has not established that Defendants violated their fiduciary duties or duties of loyalty and due care to 123 LLC and, thus, should take nothing on their first cause of action for breach of and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty or their second cause of action for breach of and conspiracy to breach duty of loyalty and due care. [¶] Because they are grounded on the same facts and legal theories, Plaintiff’s . . . fifth through eighth causes of action for dissolution of partnership, appointment of receiver, and an accounting meet the same fate. In the alternative, the Court finds against Plaintiff on these claims because he has not offered sufficient evidence to support them. For example, although Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth causes of action for dissolution of partnership and a winding-up order were set for trial with his other claims, Plaintiff’s closing briefs make no mention of any entitlement to dissolution or a winding up procedure. Further, in his section entitled “Claims on Which Plaintiff Met Its Burden of Proof,” Plaintiff claimed to have satisfied his burden as to the causes of action for “breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of due care [and related causes of action],” but again failed to mention his dissolution or winding up claims. (Plaintiff’s Closing Statement, p. 2.) The Court concludes, therefore, that Plaintiff conceded a failure to meet his burden on his dissolution and winding-up claims and any other claims not addressed in his closing arguments.”

As there are no further claims to be resolved in this matter, the Court will issue its final Statement of Decision and order Defendants to submit a proposed Judgment for entry in this case.

Plaintiff reiterated several arguments previously rejected by the Court in his position statement filed on January 4, 2023. These arguments constitute improper requests for reconsideration of the Court’s prior rulings and are denied on that basis, in addition to being rejected on the merits.