Erol Kozoglu, et al. v. Chill Spot, Inc., et al.,
BC 708632
Tentative decision on applications for writ of possession: granted in part
Plaintiffs Erol Kozoglu (“Kozoglu”), Emabil Cooperation Limited, Inc. (“Emabil, Inc.”), and Emabil, LLC (“Emabil, LLC”) seek a writ of possession to recover ice cream equipment and inventory from Defendants Chill Spot, Inc. (“Chill Spot”), Anisim S. Shneyder (“Anisim”), and Eugene Shneyder (“Eugene”).
The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.
A. Statement of the Case
1. Complaint
Plaintiffs commenced this proceeding on June 5, 2018, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion, (3) trespass to chattels, (4) fraud in the inducement, (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (6) claim and delivery, (7) replevin, (8) intentional interference with contract, (9) interference with prospective economic advantage, and (10) decl
Hearing Date
July 10, 2018
Type
Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Erol Kozoglu, et al. v. Chill Spot, Inc., et al.,
BC 708632
Tentative decision on applications for writ of possession: granted in part
Plaintiffs Erol Kozoglu (“Kozoglu”), Emabil Cooperation Limited, Inc. (“Emabil, Inc.”), and Emabil, LLC (“Emabil, LLC”) seek a writ of possession to recover ice cream equipment and inventory from Defendants Chill Spot, Inc. (“Chill Spot”), Anisim S. Shneyder (“Anisim”), and Eugene Shneyder (“Eugene”).
The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.
A. Statement of the Case
1. Complaint
Plaintiffs commenced this proceeding on June 5, 2018, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion, (3) trespass to chattels, (4) fraud in the inducement, (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (6) claim and delivery, (7) replevin, (8) intentional interference with contract, (9) interference with prospective economic advantage, and (10) decl