4645 N Socrum Loop Holdings Llc Vs. Foster, Theresa Ann

Case Number: 21BBCV00739 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: P [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOHO PROPCO, LLCS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION This is an action arising from the alleged breach of a contract concerning construction of two apartment buildings, retail space, and subterranean parking. On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff Snyder Langston Residential, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Noho Propco LLC (NPL) and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Labor and Materials Furnished; (3) Foreclose Mechanics Lien; and (4) Statutory Violation of Civil Code sections 8810 et seq . On September 30, 2021, NPL filed an Answer to the Complaint. Also, on such date, NPL filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for, among other causes of action, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence. On October 26, 2021, this action was deemed related to One Silver Serve, Inc. v. Synder Langston Residential, LLC , LASC Case No. 20BBCV00846, which was filed on November 19, 2020. (10/26/21 Minute Order.) Case No. 20BBCV00846 was deemed the lead case. (10/26/21 Minute Order.) On January 18, 2022, NPL filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) against Plaintiff alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (3) Negligence. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against NPL alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Labor and Materials Furnished; (3) Foreclose Mechanics Lien; and (4) Statutory Violation of Civil Code sections 8810 et seq . On May 26, 2022, NPL filed the operative Second Amended Cross Complaint (SAXC) against Plaintiff; J.S. Egan Design, Inc.; Don E. Empakeris Architects; Jayco-Cal Engineering, Inc.; Kaplan Gehring McCarroll Architectural Lighting, Inc.; PE&C Civil Engineering, LLC; SQLA, Inc.; Sacharias Vorgias Consulting Electrical Engineering, Inc.; Burnett & Young Shoring Engineers, Inc.; John Labib & Associates, Structural Engineers; Vivian C. Tanamachi; Salamoff Design Studio, LLC; 6th Generation, Inc.; and Roes 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, Cross-Defendants) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Negligence/Professional Negligence; (6) Express Indemnity; and (7) Equitable Indemnity/Apportionment. On November 9, 2022, Cross-Defendant Don E. Empakeris Architects filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Moes 1 through 50 alleging causes of action for: (1) Equitable/Implied Indemnity; (2) Contribution; (3) Apportionment of Fault; and (4) Declaratory Relief. On December 28, 2023, pursuant to requests for dismissal filed by NPL, the following Cross-Defendants were dismissed from the SAXC: John Labib & Associates, Structural Engineers; Salamoff Design Studio, LLC; Kaplan Gehring McCarroll Architectural Lighting, Inc.; Burnett & Young Shoring Engineers, Inc.; 6th Generation, Inc.; SQLA, Inc.; PE&C Civil Engineering, LLC; and J.S. Egan Design, Inc. On March 27, 2024, this action was reassigned to the Honorable Jared D. Moses sitting in Department P at Pasadena Courthouse effective April 2, 2024. On June 3, 2024, NPL filed and served the instant Motion to File a Third Amended Cross-Complaint. The motion is made on the grounds that NPL has claims for damages against the remaining Cross-Defendants that said Cross-Defendants dispute remain [sic] and have sought to file this Third Amended Cross-Complaint to be clear on the remaining damages sought in this action. (Not. of Mot. at p. 2:3-6.) As of July 25, 2024, the motion for leave to amend is unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) II. LEGAL STANDARD Civ. Proc. Code §473, subd. (a), allows courts to permit amendment of pleadings in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper. Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge: The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.... (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) However, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Citations.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Citation.) Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff's claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result. (Citation.) ( Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Courts will ordinarily not consider the validity of a proposed pleading; the preferred practice is to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. ( Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) But a court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where the proposed pleading fails to state a cause of action and further amendment would be futile. ( Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231.) Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend where delay in seeking amendment has prejudiced the other party. ( Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (b), requires that a motion for leave to amend be accompanied by a declaration stating why the amendment is necessary and proper, the effect of the amendment, when the facts giving rise to the amended declaration were discovered, and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. III. ANALYSIS In support of the motion, E. Scott Holbrook, Jr. (Holbrook) declares the following: this action was resolved with most parties in December 2023. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) Subsequently mediation has been held with one of the remaining cross-defendants with further mediation scheduled. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) NPL seeks to amend the [cross-complaint] to be clear that the claims [NPL] abandoned of $21,000,000 against Plaintiff . . . were abandoned because of, arose of, resulted from, occurred in connection with, and/or were related to the services provided by the Third Party Design Cross Defendants remaining in this action. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel states that it is now necessary to file a Third Amended Cross-Complaint to assure the remaining cross-defendants do not object to the damages claims as not being plead in an effort to exclude some of NPLs claims for damages claiming they were not alleged against the remaining cross-defendants. Mr. Holbrook then generally describes the proposed modifications from the SAXC to the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 3(a)-(i).) The Court finds that the motion is procedurally improper and not compliant with California Rules of Court , Rule 3.1324. NPL has failed to state by page, paragraph, and line number, where the deleted or additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) Additionally, the declaration of Mr. Holbrook in support of the motion does not state the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made sooner. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).) Nevertheless, notwithstanding these procedural infirmities, the Court will permit the filing of the third amended cross-complaint. The motion is unopposed and there are rare occasions when principles of efficiency lead one to conclude that it is best not to exalt form over substance. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Noho Propco LLC s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Noho Propco LLC to give notice of this order. Dated: July 30, 2024 JARED D. MOSES JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

21CV002764: HORN, et al. vs SCOGGINS, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 17 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Frank Roesch The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by BILJANA HORN, ERICH HORN on 02/13/2024 is Dropped. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DROPPED per stipulation by the parties.

C23-01776 CASE NAME: MARK FROHNEN VS. ALAMO RIDGE SUBDIVISION 6419 ASSOCIATION *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY: ALAMO RIDGE SUBDIVISION 6419 ASSOCIATION *TENTATIVE RULING:* Defendant Alamo Ridge filed this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint on May 24, 2024. As of July 8, 2024, no opposition has been filed and the motion is granted. The plaintiffs filed this action against defendant homeowner’s association on July 20,2023, alleging four causes of action. Thes four causes are: 1) breach of governing documents; 2) slander of title; 3) negligence; and 4) declaratory relief. The plaintiffs’ property is on a hill within the Alamo Ridge Subdivision and is subject to the Alamo Ridge Homeowner’s association’s CC&R’s. Due to heavy rains in December of 2022, part of the hill on which plaintiffs’ property rests slid down and numerous trees were felled as a result. The defendant homeowner’s association contends that plaintiffs had a duty to maintain their property, including the drainage system, to avoid such issues and charged them $1267,247 for removing the mud and downed trees. The plaintiffs then filed this lawsuit. In the present motion, defendant Alamo Ridge Subdivision seeks to file a cross complaint against plaintiffs and the other homeowners in that subdivision, who, defendant alleges also had a duty to maintain proper drainage on their properties. The proposed cross complaint has 6 causes of action: 1) negligence; 2) breach of contract; 3) nuisance; 4) premises liability; 5) equitable indemnity; and 6) declaratory/injunctive relief. The cross complaint arises out of the same transactions and occurrences as plaintiffs’ Complaint (Code of Civil Procedure sections 428.10(b) and 428.50). the motion has been brought in good faith Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50) ; and Leave should be granted in the interest of justice (Code of Civil Procedure sections 389 and 428.50(c)). For all these reasons, defendants’ motion for leave to file a cross complaint is granted.

RG21098529: Ochoa VS Ekeh 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Hector Ochoa (Plaintiff) in Department 15 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Peter Borkon The Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Hector Ochoa (Plaintiff) scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/29/2024 at 02:30 PM in Department 15 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . The unopposed Motion by Friedman & Chapman LLP to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Hector Ochoa is CONTINUED to August 29, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 15, allow counsel to serve the notice of revised hearing date on Plaintiff Ochoa. There does not appear to be proof of service on the new hearing date and time and the Court cannot discern from the record of action whether Plaintiff is aware of the revised schedule. Assuming proper service of the new hearing schedule, the Court is inclined to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers, corrected (at paragraph 9) to delete the reference to a scheduled trial date; the trial date has been vacated. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be relived will be held virtually on August 29, 2024 at 2:30 pm.

CV-22-003529 – AHLUWALIA, NIRMAL KUMAR vs KHACHO, ESAM – Defendant and Cross-Complainant Esam Khacho’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication – MOOT. In view of the Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved from Deemed Admissions, on which deemed admissions Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is founded, this motion is moot.

22CV-03537 Carlos Avila v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, et al. Demurrer By Defendant PHH Mortgage To Third Amended Complaint and to the First, Second, and Third Cause of Action therein for failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action The Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint’s First Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 2923.6 (Dual Tracking) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. There is no dispute that a Notice of Default was recorded on January 19, 2022. The complaint alleges that a loan modification application was submitted on June 9, 2022, after the Notice of Default had already been recorded. (See Second Amended complaint at Paragraph 38.) Plaintiff argues that a June 23, 2022 letter requesting additional documents constitutes an admission that the June 9, 2022 application was complete because Plaintiff contends that the additional documents requested had already been provided. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the plain wording of the letter that additional documents were required and that language cannot reasonably be construed to be an admission that all necessary documents had been provided. A reasonably interpretation of the letter is that either the documents sent had not been received, or that some aspect of the documents was insufficient. Since there is no allegation that Plaintiff responded to the June 23, 2022 letter provided all documents requested in that letter, the subsequent Sale was not in violation of Civil Code § 2923.6. These are the same defects upheld by the Court in the prior Demurrer and Plaintiff has not shown the ability to amend and has not demonstrated that further leave to amend would not be futile. Accordingly the demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint’s First Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 2923.6 (Dual Tracking) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint’s Second Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 2923.7 (Single Point of Contact) is SUSTAINED. Any failure to appoint a single point of contact in 2017-2018 was known to Plaintiff in 2017-2018 because Plaintiff’s communications with Defendant were not directed at any specific person as demonstrated by the attachments to the complaint. Since the original complaint was not filed until October 28, 2022, more than three years after 2018, any 2017-2018 violations of Civil Code § 2923.7 are time barred. Despite previous opportunities to amend, Plaintiff has not successfully alleged delayed discovery or any legitimate grounds for equitable tolling. To the extent Plaintiff alleges a violation of Civil Code § 2923.7 occurring in 2022, Plaintiff fails to allege facts establishing that any failure concerning the appointment of a single point of contact constituted a material violation within the meaning of Civil Code § 2924.12 i.e. failed to fulfill his or her responsibilities or that any failure was a material violation that affected Plaintiff’s loan obligations, disrupted the loan modification process, or otherwise caused Plaintiff harm. (See Billesbach v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 830, 845.) Plaintiff has not shown that an order granting further leave to amend would not be futile. Accordingly, the Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint’s Second Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 2923.7 (Single Point of Contact) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint’s Third Cause of Action for Violation of the Unfair Competition Law is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff has failed to allege an unfair, unlawful, of fraudulent practice despite being given several opportunities to do so.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 22, 2024 line 4. DEFENDANT TRILION CAPITAL FUND, LLC, TCF PROPERTIES, LLC, DAVID WEINER DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT is continued to August 15, 2024 for the moving party to provide a courtesy copy of the moving papers and reply no later than July 23, 2024 with a cover letter reflecting new hearing date. (Opposition received). =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

Case Number: 23STCV15942 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 53 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Central District Department 53 maria padilla , et al.; Plaintiffs , vs. joseph heffesse, as trustee of the Coldwater Canyon Trust , et al.; Defendants . Case No.: 23STCV15942 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. [tentative] Order RE: petition for approval of compromise of claim for minor claimant anthony jayden diaz MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Jeanette Oliveros RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim for Minor Claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this petition. No opposition papers were filed. DISCUSSION Plaintiff and petitioner Jeanette Oliveros (Petitioner) seeks court approval of the settlement made on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz (Minor Claimant) in this action. The compromise of a minors disputed claim for damages is valid only after it has been approved, upon the filing of a petition, by the court.¿ (Prob. Code, § 3500.)¿ The petition must be verified by the petitioner, must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, and must be prepared on Judicial Council form MC-350.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)¿ Defendants Joseph Heffesse, as trustee of the Coldwater Canyon Trust, Sandra B. Sternberg Heffesse, and LA Properties Heffesse LLC have agreed to pay a total of $175,000 to settle this action, of which $5,000 will be separately allocated to Minor Claimant. (MC-350, ¶¶ 10-11.) Of the $5,000 allocated to Minor Claimant, $1,250 will be paid to counsel for attorneys fees and $134.35 will be paid to counsel for legal costs. (MC-350, ¶¶ 13, 16.) The remaining $3,615.65 will be paid or delivered to the parent of Minor Claimant, i.e., Petitioner, without bond, on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402. (MC-350, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(5); MC-350, Attachment 18b(5), Oliveros Decl., ¶¶ 1-2, 6; Prob. Code, §§ 3401, 3402.) The court has reviewed the petition and finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable, and in the best interest of Minor Claimant. The court further finds that the declaration of Rachel Fishenfeld is sufficient to support the request for attorneys fees in the amount of $1,250 (representing 25 percent of the $5,000 settlement). (Fishenfeld Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, 6-11; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 7.955.) The court therefore grants Petitioners petition. ORDER The court grants petitioner Jeanette Oliveross petition for approval of compromise of claim on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz. The court orders that the $3,615.65 settlement on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz may be paid to plaintiff and petitioner Jeanette Oliveros pursuant to Probate Code sections 3401 and 3402. The court orders petitioner Jeanette Oliveros to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 29, 2024 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court