Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 23:15:11 (UTC).

BRYAN J ROBERTS VS ERIC SWALLOW ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/04/2015 BRYAN J ROBERTS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ERIC SWALLOW. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RICHARD E. RICO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3331

  • Filing Date:

    12/04/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RICHARD E. RICO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ROBERTS BRYAN J

ROBERTS BRYAN J.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-50

PROFITABLE CASINO LLC

SECURE STONE LLC

SWALLOW ERIC

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ATABEK & ASSOCIATES

DERBY PAUL B.

ATABEK & ASSOCIATES PC

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KUMP MICHAEL J.

VAKILI & LEUS LLP

KINSELLA WEITZMAN ET AL. LLP

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF PAUL B. DERBY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE ? 425.16

1/16/2018: DECLARATION OF PAUL B. DERBY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE ? 425.16

PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPAINT AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE ? 425.16

1/16/2018: PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPAINT AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE ? 425.16

DECLARATION OF JON ATABEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUPPORTING SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. P

1/16/2018: DECLARATION OF JON ATABEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUPPORTING SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. P

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS ERIC SWALLOW AND PROFITABLE CASINO, LLC'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE FEBRUARY 13,2018 HEARING DATE AND ETC

1/26/2018: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS ERIC SWALLOW AND PROFITABLE CASINO, LLC'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE FEBRUARY 13,2018 HEARING DATE AND ETC

DECLARATION OF JON A. ATABEK IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-COMPLAINANTS ERIC SWALLOW AND PROFITABLE CASINO, LLC'S MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING DISCOVERY OF CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN J

2/27/2018: DECLARATION OF JON A. ATABEK IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-COMPLAINANTS ERIC SWALLOW AND PROFITABLE CASINO, LLC'S MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING DISCOVERY OF CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN J

Minute Order

4/26/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/30/2018: Minute Order

Status Report

3/18/2019: Status Report

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

12/4/2015: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/ORDER FOR ISSSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

2/26/2016: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/ORDER FOR ISSSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S APPL1CATION FOR A RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER

5/25/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S APPL1CATION FOR A RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER

NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT

6/3/2016: NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT

Minute Order

6/3/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

12/19/2016: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

PLAINTIFF BRYAN J. ROBERTS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY REL1EF? CO-OWNERSHIP AND TENANCY IN COMMON; ETC.

12/19/2016: PLAINTIFF BRYAN J. ROBERTS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY REL1EF? CO-OWNERSHIP AND TENANCY IN COMMON; ETC.

PLAINTIFF?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE UNDERTAKING, OR TO CERTIFY THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO C.C.P. ? 166.1;ETC.

1/17/2017: PLAINTIFF?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE UNDERTAKING, OR TO CERTIFY THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO C.C.P. ? 166.1;ETC.

Minute Order

1/24/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

1/24/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

149 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/18/2019
  • at 00:00 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Status Report (JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 01/10/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • Minute Order ((Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Eric Swallow (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • NOTICE OF CONTINUED STATUS CONFERERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17; Status Conference (Status Conference; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
327 More Docket Entries
  • 02/26/2016
  • Points and Authorities; Filed by Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2016
  • Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040); Filed by Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2016
  • Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc.; Filed by Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC603331    Hearing Date: April 16, 2021    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

BRYAN J. ROBERTS

vs.

ERIC SWALLOW, et al.

Case No.: BC603331

Hearing Date: April 16, 2021

Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED in part, OVERRULED in part:

- Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED as to the seventh cause of action.

- Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the ninth cause of action.

While the Court does not grant leave to amend for the ninth cause of action, Plaintiff will be allowed to add injunctive relief as a remedy to the operative pleading.

On 10/15/2020, Plaintiff Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff) filed a third amended complaint (TAC) against Eric Swallow, Profitable Casino, LLC, and Secure Stone, LLC, alleging: (1) fraud; (2) breach of partnership; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) constructive fraud; (5) conversion; (6) breach of contract; (7) constructive trust/unjust enrichment; (8) declaratory relief; and (9) injunctive relief

On 2/16/2021, the parties entered into a joint stipulation to continue Swallow’s demurrer to the TAC to coincide with hearing date for Profitable Casinos, LLC.

Now, Defendant Secure Stone, joined by Swallow and Profitable Casino, LLC, demur to the seventh and ninth causes of action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ ¿When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.¿ ¿(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.)¿ In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿ ¿ “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.¿ Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”¿ ¿ “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”¿

Factual Background

This action arises out of a dispute between business partners over a casino management software solution. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his partner was reaping unshared profits off of the software without Plaintiff’s knowledge.

Discussion

I. Constructive Trust/Unjust Enrichment

Defendant argues that constructive trust/unjust enrichment is a remedy, and not a cause of action.

Indeed, a constructive trust is a remedy, not a cause of action. (See Pacific Lumber Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 371, 378; PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Frank, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 398 [“a constructive trust, however, is an equitable remedy, not a substantive claim for relief.”].)

While unjust enrichment is also generally not considered a cause of action, courts have stated that unjust enrichment is synonymous with restitution and allowed recovery where the plaintiff asserts a proper basis for recovering restitution.  See Durrell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1370; McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 387-88.  Such bases include quasi-contract, fraud, duress, conversion, or similar conduct. (See Durrell, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at 1370; McBride, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at 387-88.) 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that PCLLC and Secure Stone were used as false fronts by Swallow to carry out his fraudulent software scheme, wherein Plaintiff’s intellectual property was sold to third parties, without those profits being equally shared with partner Plaintiff, as required by the underlying partner agreement between Swallow and Plaintiff. (TAC ¶¶ 1, 4–10, 33–44, 45–51, 52–59, 66–67, 76, 78, 81.) As part of this scheme, Plaintiff alleges that nearly $19 million in licensing fees paid for Plaintiff’s software went to PCLLC (and Secure Stone), both of whom are alleged to be the alter egos of Defendant Swallow. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 4–10, 32, 50, 57, 59, 66–67, 76, 78, 81, 83.)

Therefore, while it is true that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Swallow, singular, entered into an oral partnership agreement with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants are based on a theory of alter-ego liability. While Defendants may dispute whether they are, in fact, alter-egos of Swallow, this is a factual determination not properly decided at this stage. (Popescu v. Apple, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 39,46.)

Given that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts that could show he is entitled to restitution, and stated a basis of liability for all three Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for constructive trust/unjust enrichment. The fact that both are, technically speaking, remedies is mitigated by the fact that Plaintiff has set forth a proper basis for recovering restitution. (See Durrell, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1370; McBride, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 387-88.)

Defendant’s demurrer is overruled as to the seventh cause of action.

II. Injunctive Relief

Here, Defendant similarly argues that injunctive relief is a remedy, and not a standalone cause of action.

Indeed, “[a]n ‘[i]njunction Connerly Guessous Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Plead §§ 823–825 (2008).)

Because injunctive relief is a remedy available after a finding of an underlying wrongful act, it is not properly pled as a standalone cause of action. While the Court will sustain Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action, without leave to amend, it goes without saying that this ruling does not foreclose Plaintiff’s ability to obtain injunctive relief as a remedy in this action, and Plaintiff may add this remedy to the operative pleading.

It is so ordered.

Dated: April , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

BRYAN J. ROBERTS

ERIC SWALLOW, et al.

Profitable’s motion to quash is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, consistent with the ruling below.

On 10/15/2020, Plaintiff Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff or Roberts) filed a third amended complaint (TAC) against Eric Swallow, Profitable Casino, LLC, and Secure Stone, LLC, alleging: (1) fraud; (2) breach of partnership; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) constructive fraud; (5) conversion; (6) breach of contract; (7) constructive trust/unjust enrichment; (8) declaratory relief; and (9) injunctive relief.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a dispute between business partners over a casino management software solution (PC Package). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his partner was reaping unshared profits off of the software without Plaintiff’s knowledge.

Discussion

· The topics of examination are limited to the time period of 2007 (i.e., when Swallows and Roberts’ legal partnership was formed) to present. 

· The definition of “Software” is to be limited to the PC Package, alone.

· Topic No. 1 is limited to communications about the Software.

· Topic No. 2 is irredeemably overbroad and is struck.

· Topic No. 3 is unmodified

· Topic No. 4 is unmodified

· Topic No. 5 is limited to money received related to the Software.

· Topic No. 6 is unmodified

· Topic No. 7 is limited to contracts related to the Software.

· Topic No. 8 is limited to contracts related to the Software.

· Topic No. 9 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 10 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 11 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 12 is limited to contracts related to the Software.

· Topic No. 13 irredeemably overbroad and is struck.

· Topic No. 14 is limited to payments related to the Software.

· Topic No. 15 is irredeemably overbroad and is struck.

· Topic No. 16 is irredeemably overbroad and is struck.

· Topic No. 17 is irredeemably overbroad and is struck.

· Topic No. 18 is irredeemably overbroad and is struck.

· Topic No. 19 is irredeemably overbroad and is struck.

· Topic No. 20 is limited to payments related to the Software.

· Topic No. 21 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 22 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 23 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 24 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 25 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 26 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 27 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 28 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 29 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 30 is limited to communications about the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 31 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 32 is limited to the PC Package Software. 

· Topic No. 33 is limited to communications about the PC Package Software.

· Topic No. 34 is limited to the PC Package Software.

· Topic No. 35 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 36 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 37 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 38 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 39 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 40 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 41 is limited to the PC Package Software.

· Topic No. 42 is limited to the PC Package Software.

· Profitable provided that Roberts was forced to withdraw Topic No. 43. Accordingly, the Court does not address this topic.

· Topic No. 44 is unmodified.

· Topic No. 45 is conditioned upon Roberts producing all relevant responsive documents requested by Profitable.

· Topic No. 46 is conditioned upon Roberts producing all relevant responsive documents requested by Profitable.

· Topic No. 47 is conditioned upon Roberts producing all relevant responsive documents requested by Profitable.

· Topic No. 48 is conditioned upon Roberts producing all relevant responsive documents requested by Profitable.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2021

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar

Case Number: BC603331    Hearing Date: October 13, 2020    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

BRYAN J. ROBERTS

vs.

ERIC SWALLOW, et al.

Case No.: BC603331

Hearing Date: October 13, 2020

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to all proposed changes and causes of action against Defendants Eric Swallow and Profitable Casino, LLC. Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to all proposed changes and causes of action against Secure Stone, LLC.

On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff Bryan J. Roberts (Plaintiff) filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against Eric Swallow, Profitable Casino, LLC, and Secure Stone, LLC, alleging: (1) declaratory relief; (2) fraud; (3) breach of partnership; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) constructive fraud; (6) conversion; and (7) breach of contract.

Plaintiff now seeks leave of court to file a third amended complaint (TAC).

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides that “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect . . . .” Further, section 576 provides that “[a]ny

“This statutory provision giving the courts the power to permit amendments in furtherance of justice has received a very liberal interpretation by the courts of this state.” (Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) Cal.2d 13, 19. The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny an amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice, such as the running of the statute of limitations, trial delay, the loss of critical evidence, or added preparation costs.  (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a dispute between business partners over a casino management software solution. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his partner was reaping unshared profits off of the software without Plaintiff’s knowledge.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to file a TAC to: (1) allege two new causes of action against all Defendants: constructive trust/unjust enrichment and injunctive relief; and (2) to revise his declaratory relief cause of action.

The Honorable Judge Rico previously issued an ordering sustaining a demurrer to all seven of Plaintiff’s causes of action, without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the order as it concerned the cause of action against Defendant Secure Stone, LLC (Secure Stone). On March 24, 2020, the Court of Appeal reversed Judge Rico’s ruling.

In opposition, Defendant Secure Stone argues that this effort is improper because: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against Secure Stone’s co-Defendants have been dismissed without leave to amend; and (2) while the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Rico’s previous ruling, thereby reviving Plaintiff’s single cause of action against Secure Stone, the addition of new causes of action against it are not justified.

In a separate opposition, co-Defendants Eric Swallow (Swallow) and Profitable Casino, LLC (Profitable) note that their demurrer to the causes of action against them were sustained, without leave to amend, by Judge Rico on September 8, 2017. Swallow and Profitable argue that this ruling was undisturbed by the Court of Appeals, and Plaintiff should not be allowed to circumvent this. Moreover, they argue that it would be prejudicial to enforce the Court of Appeal’s opinion against them because they were not able to participate in the appeal.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the Court has the power to revisit its earlier ruling sustaining the demurrer against Swallow and Profitable without leave to amend, and that it should do so to avoid the need to have two separate lawsuits.

The Court is unpersuaded as to Plaintiff’s arguments against Swallow and Profitable Casino. While Plaintiff argues that the Court of Appeal “made clear that Judge Rico’s September 8, 2017 order sustaining Defendants’ demurrer was legally incorrect,” this Court’s review of that opinion makes clear that the appellate reversal was limited to the cause of action against Secure Stone alone (“The trial court’s order sustaining Secure Stone’s demurrer is reversed.” Vekili Decl., Exh. 13). As such, the Court will not reverse an earlier order dismissing six other causes of action without leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s assertion that if the Court of Appeals had also taken up the rulings as to the causes of action against Swallow and Profitable, the Court of Appeals would have also reversed those. Given this Court’s unfamiliarity with the extent of arguments presented at the earlier demurrer, the Court will not reverse an earlier ruling based solely on Plaintiff’s assertion of what the Court of Appeals might have done.

However, the Court sees it fit to allow the causes of action to move forward as to Secure Stone.[1] No trial date has been set and discovery remains open. As such, the addition of new causes of action against Secure Stone will not prejudice Secure Stone.

It is so ordered.

Dated: October ___, 2020

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.


[1] The Court is unpersuaded by Secure Stone’s argument that leave to amend should be denied because Plaintiff waited three years to seek leave. Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP appeal was only decided March 24, 2020, before which progress in the suit was stayed.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KUMP MICHAEL J.