Application, Motion-Undefined in Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al| Trellis.Law

On November 07, 2018 a Party Notice was filed involving a dispute between Pacific Union International, Inc., and Booth, Paul D., Trustee Of The Anything Trust, Erik Ludwick, The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007, for Civil-Roseville in the District Court of Placer County.

Preview
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
—
SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222)
Nh sbi@sbj-law.com = ee
LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214)
Ww

lam@sbj-law.com ”
208 W. El Pintado Road
hh

Danville, California 94526 OCT
Telephone: (925) 837-2317 m
WT

Facsimile: (925) 837-4831 tleer
DH

Attorneys for Respondents PACIFIC UNION
4

INTERNATIONAL, INC; PARTNERS TRUST
REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE &
C8

ACQUISITIONS, MADISON HILDEBRAND,
individually and dba The Malibu Life Team;
oO

MALIBU LIFE, INC.; NICK R. SEGAL;
1
oo

SAMUEL H. KRAEMER, GINA
I KIRKPATRICK; and JENNIFER CHRISMAN
pamaa

13 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
14 CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
15 COORDINATION PROCEEDING JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
mga

Special Title (Rule 3.550) PROCEEDING NO, 5123
e” Sgeet sages Sige” nage

7 TOYOPA HOME CASES DECLARATION OF SHANNON B. JONES
Included actions: IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS PACIFIC
18 UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC,
ee “nee” “nese “emme”

LUDWICK v. PARTNERS TRUST PARTNERS TRUST REAL ESTATE
19 REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE & BROKERAGE & ACQUISITIONS,
ACQUISITIONS, et al. MADISON HILDEBRAND,
20
ee “ee! “oe”

INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA THE MALIBU
PACIFIC UNION
al INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LIFE TEAM, MALIBU LIFE, INC.; NICK R.
LUDWICK, et al. SEGAL; SAMUEL H. KRAEMER, GINA
eee”

22 KIRKPATRICK AND JENNIFER
eee”

CHRISMAN’S OPPOSITION TO PETITION
mee

23 FOR COORDINATION; AND REQUEST
mee Sneme Sage” emgest” Smart” Sone” emer” See” Snes” Mneee

24
FOR STAY

25 Hearing Date: November 2, 2020
Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.
26
Hearing Location:
of 312 North Spring Street
Department 14
28
Los Angeles, California 90012
Sem

DECLARATION OF SHANNON B. JONES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITION _
FOR COORDINATION; AND REQUEST FOR STAY
Superior Court of California, County of Placer
Case No. S-CV-0042080
Complaint Filed: 11/07/2018
Trial Set: 03/29/21

Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles
Case No.: 198TCV25331
Complaint Filed: 07/19/2019
Trial Date: None
sD

I, Shannon B. Jones, declare:
So

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and am a
oOo

partner at the Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc. I am counsel of record for defendants Pacific
10
Union International, Inc.; Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & Acquisitions; Madison
11
Hildebrand, individually and dba The Malibu Life Team; Malibu Life, Inc.; Nick R. Segal;
12
Samuel H. Kraemer; Gina Kirkpatrick; and Jennifer Chrisman in the action entitled Erik Ludwick
13
v. Partners Trust ef al., case number 19STCV25331, pending in the Los Angeles County
14
Superior Court {the “Los Angeles Action”). I am also counsel of record for plaintiff Pacific
15
Union International, Inc. in the action entitled Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Eric Ludwick,
16
et al., case number SCV0042080 pending in the Placer County Superior Court (the “Placer
17
Action”). By virtue of these representations, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in
18
this declaration and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto,
19
except as to those matters stated upon information and belief and as to those matters, ] am
20
informed and believe them to be true.
21
te Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Pacific Union
Zl
International, Inc.’s complaint filed in the Placer County Superior Court on or about November 7,
23
2018, in the Placer Action.
24
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the First
295
Amended Complaint and exhibits thereto filed in the Los Angeles Action.
26
Hff
27
‘ft
28
2
DECLARATION OF SHANNON B. JONES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITION
FOR CGORDINATION; AND REQUEST FOR STAY
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Civil Case

oe
Loo a Cover Sheet filed in the Placer Action on or about November 7, 2018. No party has filed a
counter Civil Cover Sheet in the Placer Action.

5. In the Placer Action, the defendants filed a motion to change venue to the

Los Angeles County Superior Court, which the Court denied, the defendants filed a demurrer to
A

the complaint, which the Court overruled, and the defendants filed a discovery motion, which the
BD

Court denied. In the Placer Action, Paciftc Union International, Inc. has filed a motion for
SF

summary judgment, and the defendants have also filed a motion for summary judgment. Those
&

motions are scheduled to be heard on October 22, 2020. There is an additional motion set for
oe

10 hearing on October 29, 2020, filed by defendants in the Placer Action regarding a revision they
1 desire to the order continuing trial.

12 6. In the Placer Action, trial was set for June 15, 2019, and then continued to

13 September 21, 2020. Shortly after the present petition was filed, the parties entered into a

14 stipulation requesting that the trial be continued to March 29, 2021. Attached hereto as Exhibit D
i5 is a true and correct copy of that stipulation and the order thereon continuing the trial to March

16 29, 2021.

17 . 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Civil Case
18 Cover Sheet filed in the Los Angeles action on or about July 19, 2019.

19 8. The Los Angeles Action is not at issue. The defendants, who are jointly

20 represented by one law firm, filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the Court sustained with

21 leave to amend. Petitioner herein subsequently filed his pending First Amended Complaint. The

22 Court ruled that the defendants need not respond to that pleading until after the present petition is

23 resolved. There has been no law and motion practice in the case, other than the one demurrer. A

24 trial date has not been set.

25 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a Case

26 Management Statement filed by the defendants in the Placer Action on or about June 17, 2018.

27 ‘ff

28 /ft
3
DECLARATION OF SHANNON B. JONES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITION
FOR COORDINATION; AND REQUEST FOR STAY
| 10. ‘In pre-trial discovery in the Placer action, Pacific Union International, Inc.

2 || has produced approximately 983 pages of documents, and the defendants have produced

3 || approximately 881 pages.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
&

foregoing is true and correct. Executed thisf aay of October 2020, at Danville, California.
WA

BR
DBD
S

SHANNON B. JONES
CS
oOo

10
11
12
13
i4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DECLARATION OF SHANNON B. JONES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITION
FOR COORDINATION; AND REQUEST FOR STAY
Exhibit A
Be age y
PERE ©
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. Superior Court of acer
Caittornie
BRUlUlUwLULUh GU
SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222) “Ounty of p lace

sbj(@sbj-law.com NOV 07 2078
LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214) he
Jam(@)sbj-law.com Executive Ones
208 W. El Pintado Road By: O, Lucatuorty, Dopey
Danville, California 94526
RU

Telephone: (925) 837-2317
Facsimile: (925) 837-4831
DH

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SN

PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
eo

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
oO

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
BWaAaEBR ZS

PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

cart ant Nagel
Case No.

Plaintiff, ama Sat PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR:
v. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
Nl

ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and
2. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
St

beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated
COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
Ne

October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST
Kes oa ge

Nel St

DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. AND FAIR DEALING;
BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The
a

Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and 3. COMMON COUNT;
a

DOES 1-50,
el

4. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
Saat! Nant

Defendants.
e

WITH CONTRACTUAL
net ot

RELATIONS;
SEO
|

5. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
w

WITH PROSEPCTIVE ECONOMIC
et
|

ADVANTAGE;
cael Sere Sat! oat
NN
NY

6. INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION;
eat Soret need Nel
FH
YM

7. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; and

8. DECLARATORY RELIEF.
NH,
AM

Plaintiff PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Plaintiff”) complains and
MPN
oy

alleges as follows: a I fh f
Ob te wA
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES =
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff Pacific Union International, Inc. is, and at all relevant times

herein was, a California corporation doing business throughout California, including in both Los

Angeles County and Placer County, as a California licensed real estate brokerage firm.

2. During the events described in this Complaint, but before a successful

offer to purchase the property was submitted, Pacific Union acquired the Partners Trust on

August 2, 2017. The two brokerages are collectively referred to in this Complaint as “Pacific

Union.” As part of this acquisition, Pacific Union became the owner of the contract described

herein and attached to this Complaint.

=. Defendant Erik Ludwick (“Ludwick”) is an individual and the beneficiary

of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007. On information and belief, Ludwick resides in

Los Angeles County, California.

4. On information and belief, Defendant The Anything Trust Dated October

12, 2007 (“Trust”) is a revocable living trust instrument operating with Ludwick as its settlor and

beneficiary.

5. Defendant Paul D. Booth (“Trustee”) is the owner and principal of Delta

17 Wealth Management (“Delta”) and is the Trustee of the Trust. On information and belief,

18 Trustee resides in and administers the Trust from Delta’s office in Granite Bay, in Placer County,

19 California.

20 6. Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious

2] names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true names and

22 capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and

23 i capacities herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the

24 fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein,

25 and that Plaintiff's damages were proximately caused by those defendants.

26 7, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that, at all

27 times herein mentioned, Defendants and Does | through S0, inclusive, and each of them, were

28 agents, servants and employees of their co-defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged

COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES
were acting in the scope and authority as such agents, servants, and employees, and with the

LH permission and consent of their co-defendants.

8. Defendants, including Does 1-50, are collectively referred to as
WY
S&S

“Defendants.”

9, Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this judicial district pursuant to
Ww

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(a) and California Probate Code Section
DBD

17002(a). The principal place of administration of the Trust, where the day-to-day activity of the
SN

Trust is carried on by the Trustee, is in Granite Bay, in Placer County.
©&

10. On or about August 29, 2016, Trustee on behalf of the Trust executed a
Oo

Residential Listing Agreement (the “Contract”) with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's agents for the sale
©

of real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles County, California
—

90272, assessor’s parce] no. 4411-026-001 (the Property”). A true and correct copy of the
WN

Contract is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.
oy

11. The Contract agreed to an initial listing price for the Property of Twenty
&

Million Dollars ($20,000,000), with a term from September 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017.
A

The Contract set Plaintiffs compensation at six percent (6%) of the Property’s sales price if.
DH

“during the Listing Period, or any extension, Broker, cooperating broker, Seller or any other
SS

person procures a ready willing, and able buyer whose offer to purchase the Property on any
©

price and terms is accepted by Seller...” (Contract, Ex. A, J 3A(1).) The Contract also provided
o

20 ! that Plaintiff would be due a commission if, “within 180 calendar days (a) after the end of the

21 Listing Period or any extension; or (b) after any cancellation of this Agreement,..., Seller enters

a2 into a contract to sell, convey, lease or otherwise transfer the Property to anyone (‘Prospective

23 Buyer’) or that person’s related entity: (i) who physically entered and was shown the Property

24 during the Listing Period or any extension by Broker or a cooperating broker; or (ii) for whom

25 broker or any cooperating broker submitted to Seller a signed, written offer....” but only if

26 Broker submitted to Seller a written list of Prospective Buyers “not later than the end of the

27 Listing Period or any extension...” (Contract, Ex. A, § 3A(2).)

3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
| i2. The Contract provides, “Seller hereby irrevocably assigns to Broker the
2 above compensation from Seller’s funds and proceeds in escrow.” (Contract, Ex. A, 4 3E.)

3 13. On February 23, 2017, the Contract was modified to extend the term to
4 August 31, 2017 and to reduce the listing price to Nineteen Million, Five Hundred Thousand

5 ($19,500,000). On June 9, 2017, the Contract was modified to reduce the Property’s listing price

6 to Eighteen Million Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars ($18,880,000). On July 7,

7 2017, the Contract was again modified to reduce the Property’s listing price to Sixteen Million

8 | Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars ($16,880,000). True and correct copies of these

9g executed modifications to the Contract are attached hereto as “Exhibit B.”

10 14. ‘Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the Contract. Plaintiff and

11 its agents listed the Property for sale, energetically marketed it with professional insight and

12 knowledge of the local market for over a year, and procured a qualified buyer.

13 15. On August 24, 2017, buyer Behdad Eghbali (“Buyer”) made an initial

14 | offer to purchase the Property.

15 16, On August 31, 2017, pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Plaintiff

16 provided an exclusion list of Prospective Buyers to Defendants. Mr. Eghbali’s name appeared

17 on the exclusion list.

18 17, On September 13, 2017, Buyer submitted a new offer to purchase the

19 Property, this time offering Sixteen Million, Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($16,300,000).

20 This offer was ultimately accepted by the Trust.

21 18. | Because Buyer was listed on the exclusion list of potential buyers Plaintiff

22 provided to Defendants on August 31, 2017, and because Buyer was a potential purchaser who

23 made an initial offer prior to the expiration date of the listing agreement on August 31, 2017,

24 Plaintiff is entitled to a commission of six percent (6%) of the sale price of the Property pursuant

25 to the Paragraph 3 of the Contract.

26 19. | Ludwick and Trustee did not agree that Plaintiff was entitled to a six

27 percent (6%) commission from the proceeds of the completed transaction.

28
4

~ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.
20. The escrow company used for the transaction was Title Resource Group,

=
WP LLC dba Terra Coastal Escrow, Inc. (“Escrow”), a Delaware corporation doing business in Los

Angeles County, California.
YS

21. On September 20, 2017, Escrow requested that Defendants sign
BR

instructions releasing the commission owed to Plaintiff. Ludwick refused in a reply email.
WH

Ludwick then communicated to Plaintiff that Ludwick disagreed with Escrow’s calculation of
DH

the percentage of the sale price owed to Plaintiff under the Contract. On information and belief,
SN

i| between September 20, 2017 and November 9, 2017, Ludwick instructed the Trustee to refuse to
&6©F

pay Plaintiff a commission unless Plaintiff lowered the amount Plaintiff would accept for the
Oo

services provided under the Contract.
oO
mee

22. On November 9, 2017, escrow on the Property closed and Buyer took title
ee

to the Property. The listing commission due to Plaintiff, who represented both Buyer and Seller
femme

in the transaction, was six percent (6%) under the Contract, or Nine Hundred Seventy Eight
fed

14 Thousand Dollars ($978,000) (the “Commission”).

15 23. On November 9, 2017, Trustee, a registered investment advisor and

16 principal of Delta Wealth Management, sent Escrow an email from his Delta email address

17 (pbooth@deltawealthmanagement.com). Trustee’s emai] instructed Escrow: “As there is a

18 dispute regarding commission for 200 Toyopa, please hold 6% of proceeds until the dispute is

19 {| resolved.”

20 24, On information and belief, Escrow complied with Trustee’s request, and

21 the Nine Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Dollar ($978,000) Commission remains in the

22 Escrow account.

23 25. As of the filing of this Complaint, nearly a year after the completion of the

24 sale and the close of escrow, Plaintiff has not received any commission for the work listing and

23 selling the Property performed under the Contract.

26 26. Trust owes Plaintiff the Commission.

27 aa Escrow has held and continues to hold the Commission at the direction of

28 Trustee.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
28. Ludwick and Trustee have and continue to negligently, wrongfully, and in

bad faith prevent Plaintiff from receiving the Commission from Escrow.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — BREACH OF CONTRACT
(AGAINST TRUST, TRUSTEE AND DOES 1-50)

29. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs |

6 through 28 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein,
7 30. Plaintiff and Trust, by and through Trustee, entered into a written contract

8 on or about September 29, 2016. The terms of that Contract were modified on February 23,

9 2017, June 9, 2017, and July 7, 2017. (True and correct copies of the Contract and modifications

10 are attached hereto as Exhs. A and B.)

il 31. Plaintiff has performed all of the things Plaintiff was required to do

12 pursuant to the Contract. Plaintiff listed and energetically marketed the Property for over a year,

13 | procured a qualified buyer, and accomplished the transfer of ownership of the Property from

14 Trust to Buyer.

15 32. Trust and Trustee breached the Contract by refusing to pay Plaintiff as

16 agreed in the Contract. Instead, Trust and Trustee have forced the Commission to sit in an

17 escrow account, ensuring Plaintiff is not paid any commission at all for the work Plaintiff

18 performed under the Contract.

19 33, As a direct and proximate result of the breaches by the Trust and Trustee,

20 Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.

21 34. Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Trust and Trustee in an amount to

22 be proven at time of trial.

ve SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANTOF
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
24
(AGAINST TRUST, TRUSTEE AND DOES 1-50)
25
35. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs |
26
through 34 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

36. As part of the Contract between Plaintiff and Trust, by and through its
28
Trustee, there existed a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that the parties to the Contract
6

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
would not do anything to impair the benefits of the bargain that existed at all times in the

relationship between Plaintiff and Trust, by and through Trustee.

37. Trust and Trustee breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing, as alleged in the preceding paragraphs, by failing to perform their obligations under the

Contract.

38. Asadirect and proximate result of the breach of the implied covenant of

good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has suffered damages and continue to suffer damages.

39, ‘Plaintiff prays for judgment against Trust and Trustee in an amount to be

proven at time of trial,

10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — COMMON COUNTS

i (AGAINST TRUST, TRUSTEE and DOES 1-50)

12 40. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs |

13 through 39 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
14 41. Asalleged herein, Plaintiff and Trust, by and through Trustee, entered into
{|
15
a Contract whereby Plaintiff agreed to perform services for the benefit of Trust and Trustee, as
16
alleged in the preceding Paragraphs.
17
42, Plaintiff performed the services requested by Trust and Trustee, including
18
19 listing and marketing the Property for sale, procuring a willing buyer, and completing the

20 transfer of the ownership of the Property from the Trust to the buyer.

21 43. Trust and Trustee have not paid Plaintiff for Plaintiff's services.
22 44. The reasonable value of the services provided by Plaintiff is Nine Hundred
23 Seventy Eight Thousand Dollars ($978,00), plus interest that has accrued since the close of
24 escrow on November 9, 2017.
25 45. Plaintiff prays for damages against the Trust and Trustee in an amount to
26 be proven at time of trial.
27 Mf
28 ffi
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FOURTH CAUSEOF ACTION- INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
WN
(AGAINST LUDWICK AND DOES I-50)
Ww

46. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs 1
es?

through 45 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
MN

47. A Contract exists between Plaintiff and Trust, by and through Trustee, as
HN

alleged in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
SN

48. Ludwick actively knew about and participated in the performance of the
SS

Contract. He frequently communicated with Plaintiff and Trustee about the marketing and sale
oo

of the Property during the term of the Contract.
10
49, On information and belief, Ludwick instructed Trustee that Trust and
11
Trustee were not to perform their obligations to Plaintiff under the Contract.
12
50. Ludwick refused to sign commission payment instructions requested by
13
the escrow officer, further preventing performance of the Contract or at least making
14
performance more difficult.
15
51. Ludwick intended to ensure Plaintiff would not receive the Commission
16
described in the Contract, and knew that by instructing the Trustee to withhold payment of the
17
Commission, disruption of performance was substantially certain to occur.
18
52. Asaresult of Ludwick’s actions, Plaintiff has not received payment of the
19
Commission and was harmed.
20
53. | Ludwick’s conduct described herein was a substantial factor in causing
21
Plaintiff's harm.
22
54. Plaintiff prays for judgment against Ludwick in an amount to be proven at
23
the time of trial.
24
FIFTH CAUSL OFACTION — INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCL? WITH
25 PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

26 (AGAINST LUDWICK AND DOES 1-50)
55. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs |
27
through 54 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth hercin.
28
8

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
56. A Contract exists between Plaintiff and Trust, by and through Trustee, as

—
NH alleged in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, by which Plaintiff had the probability of

earning a significant amount of money for Plaintiff's work selling the Property.
W

57. Ludwick actively knew about and participated in the performance of the
FSF

Contract. He frequently communicated with Plaintiff and Trustee about the marketing and sale
Ww

| of the Property during the term of the Contract.
DO

| 58. On information and belief, Ludwick instructed Trustee that Trust and
SS

Trustee were not to perform their obligations to Plaintiff under the Contract,
©

59. Ludwick refused to sign commission payment instructions requested by
Oo

the escrow officer, intentionally seeking to disrupt the relationship between Plaintiff and the
S

Trust, by and through its Trustee,
=

60. On information and belief, Ludwick directed the Trustee to withhold
EH

approval of the Commission payment to Plaintiff.

61. | Ludwick’s behavior was an intentional attempt to reduce Plaintiff’s
AR

contractually agreed-upon compensation.

62, Asaresult of Ludwick’s actions, Plaintiff has not received payment of the
RUA

Commission, or any payment at all for Plaintiff's work listing, marketing, and selling the

Property.
FSF Ce

63. Plaintiff prays for judgment against Ludwick in an amount to be proven at
Ss OULU

the time of trial.

SIXTH. ISE OF ACTION — INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
lUDN

(AGAINST TRUST, TRUSTEE AND DOES 1-50)
ROHN
OUD

64. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs |
UU

through 63 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

65. Trustee, on behalf of Trust, signed the Contract with Plaintiff. By stgning
AwUN

the Contract, Trustee represented to Plaintiff that Trustee agreed to pay Plaintiff a commission of
BP

six percent (6%) of the sale price of the Property.
eo oN
ey

9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~
66. As demonstrated by the later conduct of Trustee, who refused to pay the
BB Commission, the representation that Trustee agreed to pay Plaintiff a commission of six percent

(6%) was false, and Trustee knew when he signed the Contract on behalf of Trust that he had no
WS

intention of approving a payment of six percent (6%) of the sale proceeds to Plaintiff.
&e

67. Trustee signed the Contract and represented to Plaintiff that he would
ww

approve the Commission payment only to entice Plaintiff to agree to list and market the Property.
BA

At the time Plaintiff entered into the Contract, the Property had been languishing on the market.
JT

Trustee knew the Property needed the experience, local knowledge, relationships and vibrant
Co

personalities of Plaintiff and its agents to proceed with a successful sale.
Oo

68. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the terms of the written Contract and

believed Plaintiff would be paid a Commission pursuant to the terms of the Contract.

69. —_- Plaintiff spent a significant amount of time and money guiding the

| Property through a successful listing and marketing period and transaction to change ownership,

as they agreed to do in the Contract.

70. ‘Plaintiff has not recovered a dollar of the agreed Commission. Plaintiff

was harmed and continues to be harmed by Trustee’s misrepresentation.
mit

71. Plaintiff's reliance on Trustee’s representation that Plaintiff would be paid

a commission of six percent (6%) is the only reason Plaintiff entered in to the Contract.

72. Plaintiff prays for judgment against Trustee in an amount to be proven at
Rm

time of trial.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION — SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
RO

(AGAINST LUDWICK, TRUST, AND TRUSTEE)
OR

73. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs |
NR

through 72 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
NR

74. Plaintiff and the Trust, by and through its Trustee, entered into a valid
NM

Contract by which Trustee agreed to pay Plaintiff six percent (6%) of the purchase price of the
NO

Property.
NM

7 Plaintiff performed all of Plaintiff's obligations under the Contract.
NM

10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
76. The Commission set out in the Contract remains in an escrow account,

tN blocked from being released by the specific direction of Trustee and the refusal of Ludwick to

sign commission release instructions.
Ww

77. On information and belief, Ludwick directs the Trustee with respect to all
FF

real property decisions pursuant to the provisions of the Trust and instructed the Trustee not to
wm

| approve release of the Commission.
A

78. The continued and wrongful refusal of Ludwick, Trustee, and the Trust to
~71

release the Commission from escrow has caused significant injury to Plaintiff, who spent over a

year performing Plaintiff's obligations under the Contract and has received no compensation in

10 return. Plaintiff performed under the Contract and simply seeks that Defendants also perform.

11 79. As the Commission is already in escrow, simply awarding Plaintiff other

12 damages is not an adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff has specific instructions in place with the

13 escrow company for the treatment of commissions which would be difficult or impossible to

14 replicate if Plaintiff simply received a check for the amount of the Commission outside of the

15 context of the sale. In addition, the tax consequences of obtaining a damages award instead of

16 simply requiring Defendants to perform are potentially quite complicated, and Plaintiff may be

17 damaged by improper tax treatment of the funds unless Plaintiff obtains the Commission as

18 agreed under the Contract.

19 80. Plaintiff prays for judgment ordering Trust and Trustee to specifically

20 perform their obligations under the Contract, including:

21 | a. That the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, direct the escrow officer holding

22 the Commission to allow payment of the Commission to Plaintiff; and

23 b. That Ludwick to direct the Trustee to release the Commission to Plaintiff

24 from escrow, to the extent Trustee requires Ludwick’s approval of the

25 Commission in order to perform Trust and Trustee’s obligations under the

26 Contract,

27 ffi

28 pas

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NS
(AGAINST LUDWICK, TRUST, AND TRUSTEE)

81. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs |
WwW

through 80 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
SF

82. _ A present and actual controversy exists regarding the enforceability of the
A

Contract.
DO

83. Ludwick refused to sign instructions to release the Commission to
SN

Plaintiff, telling Plaintiff he disagreed with the percentage of the sales price that Plaintiff were
Co

entitled to under the Contract.
Oo

84. The Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, directed Escrow to hold the

Commission in escrow, claiming a dispute exists over the Commission.

85. Escrow complied with Trustee’s direction and is holding the Commission.
—

86. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Contract is

enforceable, that Trust and Trustee owe Plaintiff six percent (6%) of the sale price of the

Property pursuant to the terms of the Contract, that Escrow must release the Commission either
—_

to the Court’s escrow account or directly to Plaintiff, and that Ludwick’s refusal to sign

instructions to release the Commission may not interfere with the performance of the Contract by
let

Trust and Trustee.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

lL. For general, special, and consequential damages according to proof;
ON

2 For pre-judgment interest on damages at the rate of 10% per annum;
RO

a For specific performance of the contract;

4. For a declaration that the contract described herein is enforceable,
HN

5 For attorney’s fees;
Ne

fil
Me

‘if
6m

‘if
po

‘Tf
mM

i2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
6. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
—=
NO
es For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated : November lo, 2018 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
WwW
&

By__¢_ -————
WO

SHANNON B. JONES
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
DA

PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
nN
oo
Oo
et
= = 6S
eh
No UmteOM
eet
aA
—

16 |
17

18 jj

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~
EXHIBIT A
DigiSien Veriied. BEG TsC79-61192-41 FORE TA-FDS39A
7F 7053
~ CALTFORNIA

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 30, 2021

Case Filing Date

November 07, 2018

County

Parties

Booth, Paul D., Trustee of The Anything Trust Defendant
Erik Ludwick Defendant
Jones, Shannon Ball Rossi Domingue LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano, A Law Corporation Attorney for the Defendant
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano & Associates Attorney
Pacific Union International, Inc. Plaintiff
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney for the Defendant
The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007 Defendant
Lindsey Morgan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alan Jacobus Attorney
Franklin Bigelow Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Shannon Ball Attorney
Bruce Tackowiak Attorneys for Defendants
Susan Daley Attorney
Michael Agoglia Attorneys for Defendants
Amberly Morgan Attorney
Shannon Dillon Attorneys for Defendants
Dean Rossi Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Antoncich Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Alfred Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Notice: Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties