Preview
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO, CSB #133999
1 mnangano@lacounsel.com
MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION
2 133 N Altadena Dr, Ste 403
Pasadena, California 91107
3 Telephone: (626) 796-9998
Fax: (626) 796-9992
4
LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE, CSB #137587
5 lskidmore@asilaw.org
ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON
6 A Professional Law Corporation
200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
7 Auburn, California 95603
Telephone: (530) 823-9736
8 Fax: (530) 823-5241
9 Attorneys for Defendants
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
z ('<)
0
0 \0
l/")
11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
0\
~ c
0 <
u~N
-s:::t" 12
~ -; PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, Case No.: S-CV-0042080
~ ~
s
;:::l
l/")
I
INC.,
0 ~ '§ ~ 13
~ ~ <~
~o REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
Q 3 l/")('<) Plaintiff,
~~
0 l/")
('<)'-" 14 V. SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE
[J'J - -~ @ APPLICATION FOR ORDER
0 ;:::l ~
C [/J
~ \0
~
15 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE OF
~ -~ "C:) ('<)
(rj
0
r---
0\ NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY
Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October
~~
p:: rA 16
SN PENDING APPEAL IN APPELLATE
o~ 0~
rn O
12,2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST coµRT CASE NO. B320896; AND/OR,
Z < -
0
~ '-"
('<)
l/")
17 DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-
0 Sv BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The
~
..6 f--
COMPLAINT
< 18 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and
~
0
0
Does 1 through 50, inclusive. [Unlimited Civil Case]
N 19
Defendants. Date: July 25, 2022
20 Time: 8:00 a.m.
Dept.: 40
21
22
23
24 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
25 Pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d) and 452(h), defendant here, ERIK LUDWICK,
26 individually AND as Trustee and Beneficiary of "the Anything Trust" dated October 12, 2007
27 ("Ludwick"), hereby requests that the court take judicial notice of the following document( s)
28 listed below in support of Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Service of Notice
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice in support of the Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Service of Notice
of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in Appellate Court Case No. B320896; and/or, for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint
1 of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in Appellate Court Case No. B320896; and/ or, for Leave to
2 File a Cross-Complaint.
3 Evidence Code section 452(d) authorizes the court to take judicial notice of "Records of
4 (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the
5 United States. (140)."
6 Further, the court may deduce and rely upon the legal effect of the recorded document,
7 when that effect is clear from its face." (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th
8 256, 265.)
9 Based on the foregoing, Ludwick requests the court to take judicial notice of:
10 1. Exhibit 1 - Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Order
z
0 Sustaining Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint without
~ c
0
Leave to Amend; and Denying Motion to Strike, Los Angeles Case No. 19STCV25331
filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 12, 2022, (Evid. Code §
452(d).)
2. Exhibit 2 - The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District,
Notice Requesting a Signed Appealable Order dated June 28, 2022; Appellate Case No.
B320896, Los Angeles Case No. 19STCV25331, (Evid. Code§ 452(d).)
0
0
Dated: July 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
N 19
ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON
20 A Professional Law Corporation
21
By:
22 -L-aw
- re_n_c_e_E_._S__kc-ic-d,-m
----_o_r_e_ __ __ __
Attorney for Defendants
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice in support of the Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Service of Notice
of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in Appellate Court Case No. B320896; and/or, for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint
Exhibit 1
FDLIED
1 M[CHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999) Suparior Court of Caurornla
County of Los Angeles
MICHAELAJNANGANO,ALAWCORPORATION
2 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91107 JUL 12 2022
3 Phone: (626) 796~9998 Shorrl R, t 1 •x ~lark of Court
Fax: (626) 796 ..9992
4 By_-f.N~a~tal~fe'+{l-ar-==sh::-....:al.:_lan-.:.._ Deputy
N
N
- 5 FRANKLIN T. BIGELOW, JR (SBN 81606)
0
N
N
BIGELOW &ASSOCIATES
.....,_
~ 6 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403
f'-...
0
Pasadena, CA 91107
'"O
7 Phone: (626) 796~9998
OJ
-~u
Cl) 8 Attomeys for PIAINTIFFS: ERIK LUDWICI{>
Cl)
individually AND as Trustee and Beneficiary of
0:: 9 11The Anything T1'ust 11 dated October 12, 2007
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGEI4ES
13 ERIK LUDWlCK, individually AND as LASC Case No. 19STCV25331
Trustee and Beneficiat'Y of 11 the Anything
14 Trust 11 dated October 12, 2007; (Assigned for Alt Purposes to The Honot'able
Hon. Mau1'ice Leiter, Department 54)
15 Plaintiff,
vs. {¥R&P6SEffl ORDER
16 SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS'
PARTNERS TRUST REAL ESTATE DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD
17 BROKERAGE & ACQUISITIONS; an AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT
unincorporated California Business Entity; LEAVE TO AMEND; AND, DENYING
18 PACili'IC UNION INTERNATIONAL, MOTION TO STRIKE
INC,, a Califomia Corporationt
19 MADISON HILDEBRAND, mdividually
& dba "THE MALIBU LIFE TEAM";
20 MALIBU LIFE, INC., a California
Cor1)orntion; NICK R. SEGAL, an
21 h1dividual; SAMUEL II. KRAEMER, an
individual; GINA KIRKPATRICI{, an
22 individual; JENNIFER CHRISMAN an
individual~ and Does I through 50, incfusive;
23
Defendants. Comp]aint Filed: July 24, 2019
24
25
26
27
28
~Q8EBtORDER
2
3 On Februat'y 17, 2022, at 9:00 o.m., in Depm·hnent 54 of this Court, the Denu..ure1· llild
4 Motion to Sb·lkc flied by Defendants PACIFIC UNION lNTERNATIONA L, INC., Indlvid ually ll!ld
5 as suooessot'"h1Mintcrest to PARTNERS TRUST REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE &
6 ACQUJSITJONS, MADISON Hn...DEBRAND,'hldlvlduatly and dba THE MALIBU LIFB TEAM,
7 MALIBU LJFB, INC., NICK R. SEGAL, SAMUEL H. KRA8MBR, GINA KIRKPATR(CK, a11d
8 JENNIFBR CHRISMAN (collectjvefy, "Defendants'') came on fot· hearing.
9 The Court, havlngread nnd considered the pnpe1·s flied und m·guments contained therein, the
10 ornl nt'guinent of counsel, all matte1·s subjectto Judiclnl notice, and all the pleadings and records on
11 file he1·ein) and good cause appearing, hereby adopted its tentative n1ling mid the Coul't Cle1·k fll~d
12 the Coul'l's Minute 01·clct· (nttltched ns 11 Exhlbit..B11) as the ot·derofthe Cout't> and as such orders.as
13 folJows:
14 1, DEFENDANTS~ DEM,URRER AS TO PACIFIC UNION IS SUSTAINED
15 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;
16 2. DEFENDANTS> DEMURRER TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS
17 SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;
18 3, DEFENDANTS~ MOTION TO STRIKE rs DENIED;
19 4. DEFENDANTS TO FJLEAND SBRVEANSWERS TO THE THIRD AMENDED
20 COMPLAINT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OP RUL1NG;
21 5. DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.
22
23 The Comt coDsidei·s the moving pnpel'S, opposition and reply.
24
25 BACKGROUND
26 . On J\11y 19, 2019, PlnintlffErlkLt1dwiok, individually ~nd ns'ft·usteennd Beneficla1·y of'tthe
27 Anything Trust" dated October 12, 2007 s sued Dofendants PaL'lnors Tl't1st Rc"I Bstate Brokernge·&
28
4
N6'1'1613 .eF 1 NJ'l.tlr:ttePOSBD) ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER 1'0
PLAINTll\'JJIS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Wl1'HOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; AND~
DRNYING MOTlON '1'0 S'l'Rllm
Aoquisitionsi Pacific Union Inte1·1rntiounl, Inc,, Mndison HHdebmnd, MaUbu Life, Ino., Nick Segnl,
2 Snnrnel Kmeme1-, Ghm Kirkpatrick, and Jennlfe1 Ch1•ismatt, The operRtive Seoond Amended
1
3 Complnil1t (((SAC") nl1eges onuses ofnction for (l) breach ofClvH Code§ 2079,16; (2) breft<:h of
4 fiduciary dutyi (3) fraud nnd deceit; (4) intentional Interference with prospective cont1·actt1al
5 reJntionship and/o,: economic advalltage: (5) negligent interfere11cc with pl'ospective contt·acluol
6 relationship nnd/or economic advantage; (6) professional negligence; (7) breach of contnwt; (8)
7 brnach of Civil Code § J7200; (9) declamto1·y reHef ftS to illegality of conttnct; nnd ( I0) deola1·at01'y
8 relief as to commission owed,
9 This nctlon odses out of the sale of renl ptoperly located nt 200 Topoyn D1'lve1 Pacific
10 Pulisacles, CA 90272, Phlintiff, the seller, alleges that Defendants, Plaintlfrs brokers, impl'Opedy ·
11 acted as dual ogents of Plaintiff and the buyel' to obtain a higher commission.
12
J3 REQUES'l'S FOU JUDIClAL NOTICE
14 Defendnnts, 1-equests fo1• judicjal notice of exhlbits A> B, C, nnd E at·e GRANTED as to t~ie
15 existenceofdoomnents, but not as to the lmtltofthe mattel'sussertecl therein. (Evid. Code§ 452(~);
16 Hel'l'era v, Deutsch~ Bank Nado11al Tl'Ust Co. (2011) l 96 Cal.App.4th 1366, l 375.)i Defendm1ts 1
1'l request fol' judioial uotico of e"hlbit D Is DENIED as ft matter not subject to Judio)al notice,
18 ANALYSIS
J9 A de1mu·1-er to a complnint may bo taken to the whole oomplalt,t er to any of the causes of
20 action in it. .(CCP § 430,S0(n).) A dennu'l'et· chnUenges only the legnl sufficiency of the complaiot,
21 not the tmth of Us factual allegations 01· the plnlntiff's ability to pl'Ove those allogations. (Picton v.
22 Ande1'son Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cn\. App. 4th 726, 732.) The comt must h'eat as il'lle the
23 cDtnt>luintrs materinl factual allegations, but not conlentions,t deductions or conoluslons of fact or
24 law, (Id. at 732-33.) Tho co1nplaint is to be construed liberally to detetinine whethe1· n cause of
25 action hns been stated. (kl. ot 733,)
26 II
27 //
28
5
NOTlC:€ OJ!AND {llR.OP8BtilDI Oltl>ER SUSTAINING DEJ7ENDANTS1 DEMURRJ.tn. TO
l)LAIN'fIJ:i'F 1S THIRD AMJDNOED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; ANO,
DENYING MOTlON TO snmm
A, The 'l\AC ns fo nofendnut Pnciflc Union
2 Defendants den:mr to tl1e TAC as to Defe1ldant Pacific Un lon on the grollnds thnt nny causes
3 ofactiot1 against PMifio Union sho\\lc\ lrnve been lll'ought as a compulso1·y crosscmnplnlnt in Pacific
4 UnlonJs ncUon in Pin eel' County under CCP § 426.30. Defendants asse1t that the clnlms nt·e borl'ed.
5 The CoUl't of Appeal hns ttddrnssed CCP § 426.30 as foHows:
6 Section 426.30, s\1bdlvision(a), provides that u1r a pal'ty against whom u comphtinl has beon
7 filed and served fails to nllcge in n cross-oomplni11t any 1·elnted cause of action which (at the
8 time of serving his answer to the comJJlaint) he hfls against the plain ti ff, such pm'ly may not
9 the1·eaftc1· in any otheJ' notion ftsse1't against the plaintiff the 1·elated cause of action not
10 phmded. 0 As used in the compulsory cross ..complaint slAtute, the term "coiuplnintn includes
I1 both a complaint and Cl'oss.. complaint(§ 426, 10, subd, (a)), n11d thetcm1 "plaintiff» lnoludes
12 both a plaintiff and oross..complainnnt (§ 426.10, snbd. (b)). And the phrns~ "related cause
13 of action» In section '~26.30 is defined as "n onuse of aotio11 which fH'ises out of the snme
t4 transaction> occ~.ll'rence, 01· sel'les ofh'ansnctlons 01· occurrences as the CHllse ofaction which
15 the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.» (§ 426,10, subd. (c),) Because of the libenll
16 consh·uoUon given to the statute to uocomplish its pm1,ose of avoiding a 11mltlplioity 'of
11 {\Ctions) "ll·nnsaction° is constrncd broadly; it is 0 n.ot confined to n single, isolated act 01·
I 18
19
20
occurrence .. , but may einbl'nce o series of acts Ol' ooomTences logicnlly interrelated
[citations]/' (Saundern, supra) 231 Cal.App.2d at p. 336, 41 Cal.Rptl'. 703; see nlso CUl'de
Modicnl, Huprn, 136 Cal ,App,3 d at p, 777, 186 Ca I. Rpti·, 543,)
21
22 (Align Technology, Ino, v. Tran (2009) 179 Cfll.App. 1lth 949, 959-60.)
23
24 Defenda11ts haveprovlded Pacific Union's Flocer County complaint and Plaintiffs nnswe1·
25 to the 00111plalnt, The Plnoet• County compJnlnt nll0ges thnt Paoiflo Union is entitled to the
26 commission in. esc1•ow 1·esulting from the snle of the Toyopn pl·opel'ty. (JUN Exh. A,) Thts acti~n
27
28
6
HOttCE 611/J:iftf:B U'ROPOB~Bj OllD.ERSUSTAINlNG DEFENDANTS1 DUMURRBll TO
PLAINTIFF'S THIU.D AMENDED COMPLAIN1' Wl'rHOU'r LltAVE TO AMEND1 AND,
l>:UN\'ING MOTlON TO S1'llll{E
and the Placet' County action arise out of the "same tmnsnotion, ooomTencet or series oftmnsaotions
2 or oocmJ·enccs, 0
3 Plaintiff argues thut this action involves other defendants und onuses of ac.tiot\ and thitt
4 Pooiflo Unlon has not pL·oved it is succe.ssoJ• in intcl'est'to Piwtncrs Trust in the Placer County notion.
5 These arguments at'e tmpers\1asive, Any ctaims regnt·ding the commission of the Toyopn p1'0Jl(,Wt>'
6 Bhould have been brm1ght in a Ol'oss ..oomplal1\t in tho Pincer County Action.
7
8 Defendtmtst Demul'rer ns to TAC ngnlnstDefendant Pacific Union is SUSTAINED without
9 Ienve to amend,
10
11 B, Scvcutlt Cnuse ·or Actimt foi• B1•caoh of Contl'act
12 To {)L'evail on a cause ohction for brea.oh of conti·act., Plalntiffs must estRblish:
13 ( l) the existence of contt·aet betweeJ1 Ph'tintiffs alld Defendants; (2) Plnintiffs' porfm•mance 01·
14 excuse for 11onperfo111umce; (3) the Dofenchmfs, breach; and (4) any resulti11g damages. (Carenu
15 & Co. v. Sccmity Pacific Business Credit, Jno, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388.) Un.der
16 California law, only n signatory ton oontrnct may be liable for any bteaoh of co11traot. (Clemens
17 v. Amel'ica11 Warmnty Co11>, (1987) 193 Cal.App,3d 444, 452.)
18 The seventh cause· of notion for btenoh of contract is asse1ted against all Defendonts;
19 Plaintiff nllcges that ull Defendants are 1>arties to the contract. But the alleged breach of co1\h'nct
20 eelates to the Rgl'eement between Plaintlff and Defendant Pal'tne1·s Tmat. (TAC, Ex.h. A.) As
21 discussed) the bt·enoh of contract clnim agninst PacHfo Union, the suncesso1· in lntcrest to Pnl'tmH·s
22 Tmst, should have beea nsserted as nc1·ossMcomplnint in Plncel'County. (CCP § 426,30(n)). Plaintiff
23 hos failed to set forth fnots establishing the bnsis of liobility fol' the non ..signnto1·y defendants.
24
25 Defe11dnnts) demmre1• to the soventh cn\Ise of notion is SUSTAINED without leave to
26 amend.
27
28
7
'l'l0'i'IS~ OF AN9 fPR.0:ROi~ ORDERSUSTAINJNG DEFENDANTS' 0.EMURRl.m 1'0
PLAINTIFF'S 'fHIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Wl'l'HOU'l' LEAVE TO AMEND\ ANll,
DENYING MOTION TO S'l'RU(E
C. MQii.ou to Stl'ikc
2 Any pm'ly, within the time allowed to t·espond to n plending, may se1·vc Rlld file a notice of
3 motlou to strike the wholem uny putt !hereof. (Code ofCiv, Proo,,§ 435, snbd. (b)(l); Cal, Rules
4 of Court, rule 3, 1322> subd. (b).) The cornt may~ upon a motion or ntnuyt!me i11 its discl'etion and
5 upo11 terms it deems pl'oper: (J) sh'ike out nny h-rolevani-. false, or improper mnttel' tnse1'tcd in auy
6 pleading; or (2) stdke out allot· any pai't of any plendlng not di·awn or filed in oonfo1•mity with the
7 laws of Callfor11in, n COUl't mle, or no order of the coul't. (Code Civ, Proc., § 436, subcl, (n) .. (b);
8 Stnfford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cnl.2d 767, 782,)
9 The motion us to Pacific Union is moot. The Coul't declines to otherwise stdke
10 Plaintiffls claim for attornets fees os the notion may reveal o basis for them late1·.
lt
12 The motion to Stt'ike is DBNJED.
13
14 IT IS SQ OllDFJUtD.
15
16 D a t e d : ~ 2022
17 HONOR BLB MAURICE LElTER
JUDGE O _THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR
18 THB COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
t9
20
21
22
23
24
2:5
26
27
28
8
i)l0Tf0l!l t)fi fd'lfl) tl'n:orosn:m ORDER SUSTAlNING DEFENDANTS' n:&MURRER TO
l1 LAINTJli'F'S THIRD AMENDED COMPl,AlNT Wl'fHOUT LEAvre TO AMENU4 AND,
DEN\'tNC MOT[ON TO STnnm
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
3 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 133 N. Altadena Drive, Suite 403,
Pasadena, CA 91107.
4
On July 8, July 13, 2022
5 NOTICE OF RULING
6
on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed
7 in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
8 SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST
9 [] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error
was repo1ted by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a
10 1·ecol'd of the transmission.
11 [] (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) I am readily familiarwith the firm's practice for
collection and processing con-espondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document
12 will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid
at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
13 the paity served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date
is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
14
[] (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY/COURIER) I served the above referenced document(s)
15 enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in
the ordina1y course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on
16 attached sheet.
17 [X] (BY E-MAIL) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing document(s) via e-mail to the
addressee(s).
18
[ ] (BY HAND DELIVERY) I caused the foregoing to be delivered by hand to the offices of
19 the addressee.
20 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty ofpe1jury under the laws oftheState of California that the
above is true and correct.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 MAILING LIST
2 Ludwick v. Partners Trust. et al.
3
Case No. 19STCV2533 l
4 Shannon B. Jones, Esq.
Lindsey Morgan, Esq.
5 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
208 W. El Pintado Road
6 Danville, CA 94526
7 sbi(a>sbj-law.com
lam@sbj-law.com
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Exhibit 2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DANIEL P. POTTER, CLERK
June 28, 2022
Michael N angano
Nangano & Associates
133 North Altadena Drive
Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91107
ERIK LUDWICK, Individually and as Trustee, etc.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
V.
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
B320896
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV25331
Dear Counsel:
The civil case information statement filed on June 27, 2022 for the appeal filed on
April 14, 2022 is deficient as it does not have attached to it a copy of the signed judgment.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8. lO0(g)(l).)
You must provide the Court with a conformed copy of the signed judgment, with a
proof of service attached (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.25(a)(l)-(2)), within 15 days of the
date of this notice.
Very truly yours,
Daniel P. Potter, Clerk
by: _ _ _ _ _ __
Deputy Clerk
cc: All Counsel
File
Preview
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO, CSB #133999 1 mnangano@lacounsel.com MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION 2 133 N Altadena Dr, Ste 403 Pasadena, California 91107 3 Telephone: (626) 796-9998 Fax: (626) 796-9992 4 LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE, CSB #137587 5 lskidmore@asilaw.org ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON 6 A Professional Law Corporation 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305 7 Auburn, California 95603 Telephone: (530) 823-9736 8 Fax: (530) 823-5241 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA z ('<) 0 0 \0 l/") 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 0\ ~ c 0 < u~N -s:::t" 12 ~ -; PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, Case No.: S-CV-0042080 ~ ~ s ;:::l l/") I INC., 0 ~ '§ ~ 13 ~ ~ <~ ~o REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN Q 3 l/")('<) Plaintiff, ~~ 0 l/") ('<)'-" 14 V. SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE [J'J - -~ @ APPLICATION FOR ORDER 0 ;:::l ~ C [/J ~ \0 ~ 15 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND SHORTENING TIME FOR SERVICE OF ~ -~ "C:) ('<) (rj 0 r--- 0\ NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October ~~ p:: rA 16 SN PENDING APPEAL IN APPELLATE o~ 0~ rn O 12,2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST coµRT CASE NO. B320896; AND/OR, Z < - 0 ~ '-" ('<) l/") 17 DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS- 0 Sv BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The ~ ..6 f-- COMPLAINT < 18 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and ~ 0 0 Does 1 through 50, inclusive. [Unlimited Civil Case] N 19 Defendants. Date: July 25, 2022 20 Time: 8:00 a.m. Dept.: 40 21 22 23 24 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 25 Pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d) and 452(h), defendant here, ERIK LUDWICK, 26 individually AND as Trustee and Beneficiary of "the Anything Trust" dated October 12, 2007 27 ("Ludwick"), hereby requests that the court take judicial notice of the following document( s) 28 listed below in support of Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Service of Notice Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice in support of the Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Service of Notice of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in Appellate Court Case No. B320896; and/or, for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint 1 of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in Appellate Court Case No. B320896; and/ or, for Leave to 2 File a Cross-Complaint. 3 Evidence Code section 452(d) authorizes the court to take judicial notice of "Records of 4 (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the 5 United States. (140)." 6 Further, the court may deduce and rely upon the legal effect of the recorded document, 7 when that effect is clear from its face." (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 8 256, 265.) 9 Based on the foregoing, Ludwick requests the court to take judicial notice of: 10 1. Exhibit 1 - Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Order z 0 Sustaining Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint without ~ c 0 Leave to Amend; and Denying Motion to Strike, Los Angeles Case No. 19STCV25331 filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 12, 2022, (Evid. Code § 452(d).) 2. Exhibit 2 - The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Notice Requesting a Signed Appealable Order dated June 28, 2022; Appellate Case No. B320896, Los Angeles Case No. 19STCV25331, (Evid. Code§ 452(d).) 0 0 Dated: July 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted, N 19 ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON 20 A Professional Law Corporation 21 By: 22 -L-aw - re_n_c_e_E_._S__kc-ic-d,-m ----_o_r_e_ __ __ __ Attorney for Defendants 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice in support of the Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Service of Notice of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in Appellate Court Case No. B320896; and/or, for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint Exhibit 1 FDLIED 1 M[CHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999) Suparior Court of Caurornla County of Los Angeles MICHAELAJNANGANO,ALAWCORPORATION 2 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 JUL 12 2022 3 Phone: (626) 796~9998 Shorrl R, t 1 •x ~lark of Court Fax: (626) 796 ..9992 4 By_-f.N~a~tal~fe'+{l-ar-==sh::-....:al.:_lan-.:.._ Deputy N N - 5 FRANKLIN T. BIGELOW, JR (SBN 81606) 0 N N BIGELOW &ASSOCIATES .....,_ ~ 6 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 f'-... 0 Pasadena, CA 91107 '"O 7 Phone: (626) 796~9998 OJ -~u Cl) 8 Attomeys for PIAINTIFFS: ERIK LUDWICI{> Cl) individually AND as Trustee and Beneficiary of 0:: 9 11The Anything T1'ust 11 dated October 12, 2007 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGEI4ES 13 ERIK LUDWlCK, individually AND as LASC Case No. 19STCV25331 Trustee and Beneficiat'Y of 11 the Anything 14 Trust 11 dated October 12, 2007; (Assigned for Alt Purposes to The Honot'able Hon. Mau1'ice Leiter, Department 54) 15 Plaintiff, vs. {¥R&P6SEffl ORDER 16 SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' PARTNERS TRUST REAL ESTATE DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD 17 BROKERAGE & ACQUISITIONS; an AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT unincorporated California Business Entity; LEAVE TO AMEND; AND, DENYING 18 PACili'IC UNION INTERNATIONAL, MOTION TO STRIKE INC,, a Califomia Corporationt 19 MADISON HILDEBRAND, mdividually & dba "THE MALIBU LIFE TEAM"; 20 MALIBU LIFE, INC., a California Cor1)orntion; NICK R. SEGAL, an 21 h1dividual; SAMUEL II. KRAEMER, an individual; GINA KIRKPATRICI{, an 22 individual; JENNIFER CHRISMAN an individual~ and Does I through 50, incfusive; 23 Defendants. Comp]aint Filed: July 24, 2019 24 25 26 27 28 ~Q8EBtORDER 2 3 On Februat'y 17, 2022, at 9:00 o.m., in Depm·hnent 54 of this Court, the Denu..ure1· llild 4 Motion to Sb·lkc flied by Defendants PACIFIC UNION lNTERNATIONA L, INC., Indlvid ually ll!ld 5 as suooessot'"h1Mintcrest to PARTNERS TRUST REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE & 6 ACQUJSITJONS, MADISON Hn...DEBRAND,'hldlvlduatly and dba THE MALIBU LIFB TEAM, 7 MALIBU LJFB, INC., NICK R. SEGAL, SAMUEL H. KRA8MBR, GINA KIRKPATR(CK, a11d 8 JENNIFBR CHRISMAN (collectjvefy, "Defendants'') came on fot· hearing. 9 The Court, havlngread nnd considered the pnpe1·s flied und m·guments contained therein, the 10 ornl nt'guinent of counsel, all matte1·s subjectto Judiclnl notice, and all the pleadings and records on 11 file he1·ein) and good cause appearing, hereby adopted its tentative n1ling mid the Coul't Cle1·k fll~d 12 the Coul'l's Minute 01·clct· (nttltched ns 11 Exhlbit..B11) as the ot·derofthe Cout't> and as such orders.as 13 folJows: 14 1, DEFENDANTS~ DEM,URRER AS TO PACIFIC UNION IS SUSTAINED 15 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 16 2. DEFENDANTS> DEMURRER TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS 17 SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 18 3, DEFENDANTS~ MOTION TO STRIKE rs DENIED; 19 4. DEFENDANTS TO FJLEAND SBRVEANSWERS TO THE THIRD AMENDED 20 COMPLAINT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OP RUL1NG; 21 5. DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE. 22 23 The Comt coDsidei·s the moving pnpel'S, opposition and reply. 24 25 BACKGROUND 26 . On J\11y 19, 2019, PlnintlffErlkLt1dwiok, individually ~nd ns'ft·usteennd Beneficla1·y of'tthe 27 Anything Trust" dated October 12, 2007 s sued Dofendants PaL'lnors Tl't1st Rc"I Bstate Brokernge·& 28 4 N6'1'1613 .eF 1 NJ'l.tlr:ttePOSBD) ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER 1'0 PLAINTll\'JJIS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Wl1'HOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; AND~ DRNYING MOTlON '1'0 S'l'Rllm Aoquisitionsi Pacific Union Inte1·1rntiounl, Inc,, Mndison HHdebmnd, MaUbu Life, Ino., Nick Segnl, 2 Snnrnel Kmeme1-, Ghm Kirkpatrick, and Jennlfe1 Ch1•ismatt, The operRtive Seoond Amended 1 3 Complnil1t (((SAC") nl1eges onuses ofnction for (l) breach ofClvH Code§ 2079,16; (2) breft<:h of 4 fiduciary dutyi (3) fraud nnd deceit; (4) intentional Interference with prospective cont1·actt1al 5 reJntionship and/o,: economic advalltage: (5) negligent interfere11cc with pl'ospective contt·acluol 6 relationship nnd/or economic advantage; (6) professional negligence; (7) breach of contnwt; (8) 7 brnach of Civil Code § J7200; (9) declamto1·y reHef ftS to illegality of conttnct; nnd ( I0) deola1·at01'y 8 relief as to commission owed, 9 This nctlon odses out of the sale of renl ptoperly located nt 200 Topoyn D1'lve1 Pacific 10 Pulisacles, CA 90272, Phlintiff, the seller, alleges that Defendants, Plaintlfrs brokers, impl'Opedy · 11 acted as dual ogents of Plaintiff and the buyel' to obtain a higher commission. 12 J3 REQUES'l'S FOU JUDIClAL NOTICE 14 Defendnnts, 1-equests fo1• judicjal notice of exhlbits A> B, C, nnd E at·e GRANTED as to t~ie 15 existenceofdoomnents, but not as to the lmtltofthe mattel'sussertecl therein. (Evid. Code§ 452(~); 16 Hel'l'era v, Deutsch~ Bank Nado11al Tl'Ust Co. (2011) l 96 Cal.App.4th 1366, l 375.)i Defendm1ts 1 1'l request fol' judioial uotico of e"hlbit D Is DENIED as ft matter not subject to Judio)al notice, 18 ANALYSIS J9 A de1mu·1-er to a complnint may bo taken to the whole oomplalt,t er to any of the causes of 20 action in it. .(CCP § 430,S0(n).) A dennu'l'et· chnUenges only the legnl sufficiency of the complaiot, 21 not the tmth of Us factual allegations 01· the plnlntiff's ability to pl'Ove those allogations. (Picton v. 22 Ande1'son Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cn\. App. 4th 726, 732.) The comt must h'eat as il'lle the 23 cDtnt>luintrs materinl factual allegations, but not conlentions,t deductions or conoluslons of fact or 24 law, (Id. at 732-33.) Tho co1nplaint is to be construed liberally to detetinine whethe1· n cause of 25 action hns been stated. (kl. ot 733,) 26 II 27 // 28 5 NOTlC:€ OJ!AND {llR.OP8BtilDI Oltl>ER SUSTAINING DEJ7ENDANTS1 DEMURRJ.tn. TO l)LAIN'fIJ:i'F 1S THIRD AMJDNOED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; ANO, DENYING MOTlON TO snmm A, The 'l\AC ns fo nofendnut Pnciflc Union 2 Defendants den:mr to tl1e TAC as to Defe1ldant Pacific Un lon on the grollnds thnt nny causes 3 ofactiot1 against PMifio Union sho\\lc\ lrnve been lll'ought as a compulso1·y crosscmnplnlnt in Pacific 4 UnlonJs ncUon in Pin eel' County under CCP § 426.30. Defendants asse1t that the clnlms nt·e borl'ed. 5 The CoUl't of Appeal hns ttddrnssed CCP § 426.30 as foHows: 6 Section 426.30, s\1bdlvision(a), provides that u1r a pal'ty against whom u comphtinl has beon 7 filed and served fails to nllcge in n cross-oomplni11t any 1·elnted cause of action which (at the 8 time of serving his answer to the comJJlaint) he hfls against the plain ti ff, such pm'ly may not 9 the1·eaftc1· in any otheJ' notion ftsse1't against the plaintiff the 1·elated cause of action not 10 phmded. 0 As used in the compulsory cross ..complaint slAtute, the term "coiuplnintn includes I1 both a complaint and Cl'oss.. complaint(§ 426, 10, subd, (a)), n11d thetcm1 "plaintiff» lnoludes 12 both a plaintiff and oross..complainnnt (§ 426.10, snbd. (b)). And the phrns~ "related cause 13 of action» In section '~26.30 is defined as "n onuse of aotio11 which fH'ises out of the snme t4 transaction> occ~.ll'rence, 01· sel'les ofh'ansnctlons 01· occurrences as the CHllse ofaction which 15 the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.» (§ 426,10, subd. (c),) Because of the libenll 16 consh·uoUon given to the statute to uocomplish its pm1,ose of avoiding a 11mltlplioity 'of 11 {\Ctions) "ll·nnsaction° is constrncd broadly; it is 0 n.ot confined to n single, isolated act 01· I 18 19 20 occurrence .. , but may einbl'nce o series of acts Ol' ooomTences logicnlly interrelated [citations]/' (Saundern, supra) 231 Cal.App.2d at p. 336, 41 Cal.Rptl'. 703; see nlso CUl'de Modicnl, Huprn, 136 Cal ,App,3 d at p, 777, 186 Ca I. Rpti·, 543,) 21 22 (Align Technology, Ino, v. Tran (2009) 179 Cfll.App. 1lth 949, 959-60.) 23 24 Defenda11ts haveprovlded Pacific Union's Flocer County complaint and Plaintiffs nnswe1· 25 to the 00111plalnt, The Plnoet• County compJnlnt nll0ges thnt Paoiflo Union is entitled to the 26 commission in. esc1•ow 1·esulting from the snle of the Toyopn pl·opel'ty. (JUN Exh. A,) Thts acti~n 27 28 6 HOttCE 611/J:iftf:B U'ROPOB~Bj OllD.ERSUSTAINlNG DEFENDANTS1 DUMURRBll TO PLAINTIFF'S THIU.D AMENDED COMPLAIN1' Wl'rHOU'r LltAVE TO AMEND1 AND, l>:UN\'ING MOTlON TO S1'llll{E and the Placet' County action arise out of the "same tmnsnotion, ooomTencet or series oftmnsaotions 2 or oocmJ·enccs, 0 3 Plaintiff argues thut this action involves other defendants und onuses of ac.tiot\ and thitt 4 Pooiflo Unlon has not pL·oved it is succe.ssoJ• in intcl'est'to Piwtncrs Trust in the Placer County notion. 5 These arguments at'e tmpers\1asive, Any ctaims regnt·ding the commission of the Toyopn p1'0Jl(,Wt>' 6 Bhould have been brm1ght in a Ol'oss ..oomplal1\t in tho Pincer County Action. 7 8 Defendtmtst Demul'rer ns to TAC ngnlnstDefendant Pacific Union is SUSTAINED without 9 Ienve to amend, 10 11 B, Scvcutlt Cnuse ·or Actimt foi• B1•caoh of Contl'act 12 To {)L'evail on a cause ohction for brea.oh of conti·act., Plalntiffs must estRblish: 13 ( l) the existence of contt·aet betweeJ1 Ph'tintiffs alld Defendants; (2) Plnintiffs' porfm•mance 01· 14 excuse for 11onperfo111umce; (3) the Dofenchmfs, breach; and (4) any resulti11g damages. (Carenu 15 & Co. v. Sccmity Pacific Business Credit, Jno, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388.) Un.der 16 California law, only n signatory ton oontrnct may be liable for any bteaoh of co11traot. (Clemens 17 v. Amel'ica11 Warmnty Co11>, (1987) 193 Cal.App,3d 444, 452.) 18 The seventh cause· of notion for btenoh of contract is asse1ted against all Defendonts; 19 Plaintiff nllcges that ull Defendants are 1>arties to the contract. But the alleged breach of co1\h'nct 20 eelates to the Rgl'eement between Plaintlff and Defendant Pal'tne1·s Tmat. (TAC, Ex.h. A.) As 21 discussed) the bt·enoh of contract clnim agninst PacHfo Union, the suncesso1· in lntcrest to Pnl'tmH·s 22 Tmst, should have beea nsserted as nc1·ossMcomplnint in Plncel'County. (CCP § 426,30(n)). Plaintiff 23 hos failed to set forth fnots establishing the bnsis of liobility fol' the non ..signnto1·y defendants. 24 25 Defe11dnnts) demmre1• to the soventh cn\Ise of notion is SUSTAINED without leave to 26 amend. 27 28 7 'l'l0'i'IS~ OF AN9 fPR.0:ROi~ ORDERSUSTAINJNG DEFENDANTS' 0.EMURRl.m 1'0 PLAINTIFF'S 'fHIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Wl'l'HOU'l' LEAVE TO AMEND\ ANll, DENYING MOTION TO S'l'RU(E C. MQii.ou to Stl'ikc 2 Any pm'ly, within the time allowed to t·espond to n plending, may se1·vc Rlld file a notice of 3 motlou to strike the wholem uny putt !hereof. (Code ofCiv, Proo,,§ 435, snbd. (b)(l); Cal, Rules 4 of Court, rule 3, 1322> subd. (b).) The cornt may~ upon a motion or ntnuyt!me i11 its discl'etion and 5 upo11 terms it deems pl'oper: (J) sh'ike out nny h-rolevani-. false, or improper mnttel' tnse1'tcd in auy 6 pleading; or (2) stdke out allot· any pai't of any plendlng not di·awn or filed in oonfo1•mity with the 7 laws of Callfor11in, n COUl't mle, or no order of the coul't. (Code Civ, Proc., § 436, subcl, (n) .. (b); 8 Stnfford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cnl.2d 767, 782,) 9 The motion us to Pacific Union is moot. The Coul't declines to otherwise stdke 10 Plaintiffls claim for attornets fees os the notion may reveal o basis for them late1·. lt 12 The motion to Stt'ike is DBNJED. 13 14 IT IS SQ OllDFJUtD. 15 16 D a t e d : ~ 2022 17 HONOR BLB MAURICE LElTER JUDGE O _THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR 18 THB COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES t9 20 21 22 23 24 2:5 26 27 28 8 i)l0Tf0l!l t)fi fd'lfl) tl'n:orosn:m ORDER SUSTAlNING DEFENDANTS' n:&MURRER TO l1 LAINTJli'F'S THIRD AMENDED COMPl,AlNT Wl'fHOUT LEAvre TO AMENU4 AND, DEN\'tNC MOT[ON TO STnnm 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 3 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 133 N. Altadena Drive, Suite 403, Pasadena, CA 91107. 4 On July 8, July 13, 2022 5 NOTICE OF RULING 6 on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed 7 in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: 8 SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST 9 [] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was repo1ted by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a 10 1·ecol'd of the transmission. 11 [] (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) I am readily familiarwith the firm's practice for collection and processing con-espondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document 12 will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of 13 the paity served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 14 [] (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY/COURIER) I served the above referenced document(s) 15 enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in the ordina1y course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on 16 attached sheet. 17 [X] (BY E-MAIL) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing document(s) via e-mail to the addressee(s). 18 [ ] (BY HAND DELIVERY) I caused the foregoing to be delivered by hand to the offices of 19 the addressee. 20 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty ofpe1jury under the laws oftheState of California that the above is true and correct. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 MAILING LIST 2 Ludwick v. Partners Trust. et al. 3 Case No. 19STCV2533 l 4 Shannon B. Jones, Esq. Lindsey Morgan, Esq. 5 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. 208 W. El Pintado Road 6 Danville, CA 94526 7 sbi(a>sbj-law.com lam@sbj-law.com 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE Exhibit 2 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DANIEL P. POTTER, CLERK June 28, 2022 Michael N angano Nangano & Associates 133 North Altadena Drive Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 ERIK LUDWICK, Individually and as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, V. PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant and Respondent. B320896 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV25331 Dear Counsel: The civil case information statement filed on June 27, 2022 for the appeal filed on April 14, 2022 is deficient as it does not have attached to it a copy of the signed judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8. lO0(g)(l).) You must provide the Court with a conformed copy of the signed judgment, with a proof of service attached (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.25(a)(l)-(2)), within 15 days of the date of this notice. Very truly yours, Daniel P. Potter, Clerk by: _ _ _ _ _ __ Deputy Clerk cc: All Counsel File