This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 01:10:00 (UTC).

ABBA BAIL BONDS INC VS GOTHAM BAIL BONDS LIMITED LIABILITY C

Case Summary

On 05/17/2016 ABBA BAIL BONDS INC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against GOTHAM BAIL BONDS LIMITED LIABILITY C. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARY H. STROBEL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0878

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARY H. STROBEL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

ABBA BAIL BONDS INC.

NABI YOUSUF

ROMAN ANA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

MUNOZ JORGE

VILLALOBOS YOLANDA

VELASCO DAVID

NABI YOUSUF

ROMAN ANA

FERNANDEZ CYNTHIA

GOTHAM BAIL BONDS LIMITED LIABILITY COMP-

MONTENEGRO CARLOS

GARCIA DANY

SO. CAL. FUGITIVE RECOVERY INC.

HARUTYUNYAN HUTCH; DOE 2

CASTRO BRENDA

VIP BAIL BONDS CORPORATION

NAVARRETE ALEJANDRO

GOTHAM BAIL BONDS LIMITED LIABILITY COMP.

GOTHAM BAIL BONDS INC.; DOE 1

GAHBRO ATILLA

FLORES YESENIA

Cross Defendant

UN JANE

4 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF GARY KURTZ A.P.L.C.

Defendant Attorneys

DAWSON JONATHAN T.

BARRIAGE JOHN B. ESQ.

LANG HANIGAN & CARVALHO LLP

Other Attorneys

JOHN VALENTINE ATTORNEY AT LAW

TQM LAW CORPORATION

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

1/23/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

5/19/2016: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ETC.

5/19/2016: PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ETC.

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/15/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

STIPULATION AND ORDER ,TOCONIJE TEORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND RELATED DATES

7/13/2016: STIPULATION AND ORDER ,TOCONIJE TEORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND RELATED DATES

REQUEST FOR HEARING ABOUT COURT FEE WAIVER ORDER (SUPERIOR COURT)

8/2/2016: REQUEST FOR HEARING ABOUT COURT FEE WAIVER ORDER (SUPERIOR COURT)

NOTICE ON HEARING ABOUT COURT FEES

8/5/2016: NOTICE ON HEARING ABOUT COURT FEES

NOTICE ON HEARING ABOUT COURT FEES

8/5/2016: NOTICE ON HEARING ABOUT COURT FEES

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

9/13/2016: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

11/8/2016: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

11/10/2016: STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Minute Order

11/16/2016: Minute Order

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS GOTHAM BAIL BONDS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, YOUSUF NABI, AND ANA ROMAN

12/16/2016: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS GOTHAM BAIL BONDS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, YOUSUF NABI, AND ANA ROMAN

SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SUBPOENA TO AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY RE ABBA'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND/OR TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

5/31/2017: SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SUBPOENA TO AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY RE ABBA'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND/OR TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY LIEN

6/13/2017: NOTICE OF ATTORNEY LIEN

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/13/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/31/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION - ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT - JUDGMENT DEBTOR

11/14/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION - ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT - JUDGMENT DEBTOR

172 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/23/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by ABBA Bail Bonds, Inc. (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; (Motion for Leave) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Order (RULING); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (1) Motion for Leave; 2) Trial Setting Conference; 3) Status C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • at 08:32 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion for Leave - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • Minute Order ((1) Motion for Leave Hearing; (2) Trial Setting Conference; (3...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • at 08:32 AM in Department 49; (Motion for Leave; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
406 More Docket Entries
  • 05/19/2016
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • Ex-parte Request for Order; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • Order; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by ABBA Bail Bonds, Inc. (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2016
  • TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE AND STATUTORY RELIEF FOR: 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC620878    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Abba Bail Bonds Inc.,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC620878

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Gotham Bail Bonds LLC, et al.

Defendants.

Hearing Date: July 7, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Defendant Ana Roman’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

(2) Defendant Yousuf Nabi’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

Moving Party:  Defendants Ana Roman and Yousuf Nabi

Responding Party:      Plaintiff ABBA Bail Bonds

Ruling: Defendant Ana Roman’s motion for summary adjudication is denied in full. Defendant Yousuf Nabi’s motion for summary adjudication is also denied.

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections

Legal Standard

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)

“A defendant...has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

Once the movant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The opposing party “may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings,” but rather “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.” (Id.)

Defendant Ana Roman’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

First Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Roman has met her initial burden of showing there is no triable issue of fact as to whether she owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiff by stating that she never had any managerial discretion or corporate authority on behalf of plaintiff. (Roman’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (UMF) 5.)

Plaintiff, in turn, has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Roman had such authority. (See Plaintiff’s Additional Facts (AMF) 27-41.) For example, Jane Un, plaintiff’s CEO, states in her declaration that she gave Roman control of plaintiff’s daily financial operations, which Roman accepted. (AMF 27-28.) Roman took over responsibility and oversight for all plaintiff’s bank accounts. (AMF 29.) Roman identified herself as plaintiff’s accountant in her correspondence with Wells Fargo. (AMF 37.)

To argue that she owes no fiduciary duty as a matter of law, Roman cites Insurance Code section 1810, which requires that a bail company be owned by licensed bail agents and that all shareholders, officers, and directors of the company be licensed bail agents. Defendant correctly observes that nothing in section 1810 prohibits a non-bail agent from having managerial authority.

Roman also cites GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 409, disapproved of on other grounds in Reeves v. Hanlon (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, which held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct that the vice-president was a fiduciary of the plaintiff company as a matter of law. (Id.) The court in GAB concluded that “an officer who participates in management of the corporation, exercising some discretionary authority, is a fiduciary of the corporation as a matter of law. . . . Whether a particular officer participates in management is a question of fact.” (Id. at pp. 420-421.)

GAB does not preclude a factual finding that plaintiff owed a fiduciary duty. To the extent plaintiff argues that she had no duty as a matter of law merely because she lacked a formal title of “officer,” that argument is rejected. As plaintiff has observed, at least one court has recognized that managing employees “unquestionably” owe a fiduciary duty to the entity that employs them. (See Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 244, 249.) Thus, the issue of whether Roman owed a fiduciary duty will involve a factual inquiry into Roman’s conduct, and such analysis is not obviated by any formal title Roman may or may not have held. For the reasons stated above, there remains a triable issue of material fact as to whether Roman participated in management or undertook control of the company’s financial operations. Therefore, Roman’s motion for summary adjudication is denied with respect to plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract

Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether Roman signed. (AMF 16.) Un states in her declaration that she saw a copy of the agreement signed by Roman, which was maintained in her employee file, but that after Roman left plaintiff’s employment, her employee file went missing. (Id.) This is sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Roman signed the agreement. Therefore, Roman’s motion for summary adjudication is denied with respect to plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for breach of written contract.

Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Duty of Loyalty

In turn, plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether Roman breached a duty of loyalty by proffering evidence showing that Roman changed the user name and password to access plaintiff’s financials so that only she could access it. (AMF 32.) She also changed the mailing address for all of plaintiff’s debit card statements to an address unknown to plaintiff. (AMF 34.) When Un asked about a suspicious $220,000 payment to GoogleAds as well as numerous other financial irregularities, Roman was unable to provide a reasonable or credible explanation. (AMF 43-44.) Roman stonewalled an independent financial auditor that Un hired to investigate. (AMF 48.) Roman quit her employment with plaintiff and started doing business at a newly formed competitor. She had allegedly been taking secret measures to start and organize this enterprise while still employed with plaintiff. (AMF 55.) These facts are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Roman breached her duty of loyalty to plaintiff. Therefore, Roman’s motion for summary adjudication is denied in full.

Defendant Yousuf Nabi’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

First Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract

Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Duty of Loyalty

Plaintiff, in turn, has raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether Nabi breached a duty of loyalty. (See AMF 42-44, 47-49, 55, 59-78.) For example, plaintiff has proffered evidence showing that Nabi forged many checks, totaling over $100,000, before filing the articles of incorporation for his own competing company, Gotham. (AMF 68, 71.) This raises a triable issue of material fact as to whether Nabi took plaintiff’s funds while employed with plaintiff to fund his own competing business. Therefore, there remains a triable issue of material fact as to whether Nabi breached his duty of loyalty.

Date: July 7, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court