On 01/14/2016 CRYSTAL MENDOZA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against PATRICIA SCHLICK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BENNY C. OSORIO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BENNY C. OSORIO
DOES 1 TO 20
LAW OFFICES OF GENE J. GOLDSMAN
WEBB SHARON K.
1/14/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
3/15/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
4/7/2016: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF CRYSTAL MENDOZA AND ANNIE ANTHONY
4/7/2016: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
12/7/2016: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
5/18/2017: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE
8/3/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Request and Entry of Dismissal (ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJ ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR DISMISSALRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 97; (Trial; Case Deemed Settled) -Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 97; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Case Deemed Settled) -Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 am in Department 97, Benny C. Osorio, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Case Deemed SettledRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Settlement; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASERead MoreRead Less
Notice-Settlement; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR DISMISSALRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Patricia Schlick (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF CRYSTAL MENDOZA AND ANNIE ANTHONYRead MoreRead Less
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Crystal Mendoza (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Crystal Mendoza (Plaintiff); Annie Anthony (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC607173 Hearing Date: February 26, 2021 Dept: 24
Hearing on Plaintiff’s default judgment application is CONTINUED to March 19, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.
On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff Shlomo Rechnitz filed the above-entitled action against defendants Jason Lyons, Moshe Hogeg, and Mobli Media, Inc. The Complaint alleges securities fraud against Defendants, who made material misrepresentations regarding investments allegedly made in, and pledged financial support for, Mobli - a tech startup. In reliance thereon, Plaintiff purchased $4.5 million in Mobli stock. The Complaint states seven causes of action for: 1) breach of Florida securities registration statute; 2) securities fraud; 3) control person liability; 4) common law fraud; 5) breach of California Broker-Dealer Registration statute; 6) negligent misrepresentation; and 7) unjust enrichment.
On May 16, 2018, the Court entered default against Mobli. On June 4, 2018, the Court entered default against Hogeg. Lyons filed an answer on May 29, 2018.
On January 15, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation that the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools would be substituted in as Plaintiff with respect to claims asserted against Lyons. (See CCP § 368.5.)
On November 5, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation for settlement as to Lyons and dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request. On November 25, 2020, Rechnitz filed a motion to vacate the dismissal. On January 4, 2021, the Court granted the motion to vacate.
Rechnitz seeks the entry of a default judgment in his favor for his claims against Hogeg for i) statutory securities fraud; ii) control person liability; and iii) unjust enrichment/restitution. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s default judgment packet submitted on January 8, 2021. The Court notes the following issues:
Rechnitz states three claims against Hogeg for securities fraud in violation of Corp. Code § 25000 et seq., control person liability under the same statute, and unjust enrichment. Note that in California, there is no cause of action for unjust enrichment. (Rutherford Holdings LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231 [the court construed unjust enrichment as quasi-contract claims seeking restitution].)
Pursuant to the claims, Rechnitz seeks rescission of the securities transaction and return of the purchase price plus interest against Hogeg. Rescission is a remedy that disaffirms the contract. (See Civ. Code, § 1688.) The remedy effectively extinguishes the contract ab initio as though it never came into existence. (NMSBCSLDHB v. County of Fresno (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 954, 959-960.) Rescission requires each party to restore to the other everything of value received under contract, i.e. a return to the status quo. (Viterbi v. Wasserman (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 927, 935.) Plaintiff’s only remedy is rescission under Corp. Code section 25501, which states in relevant part:
Any person who violates Section 25401 shall be liable to the person who purchases a security from him or sells a security to him, who may sue either for rescission or for damages (if the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, no longer owns the security)… Upon rescission, a purchaser may recover the consideration paid for the security, plus interest at the legal rate, less the amount of any income received on the security, upon tender of the security… Any tender specified in this section may be made at any time before entry of judgment.
(Emphasi added; see also Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1010 [seller could not obtain rescission as a remedy for buyers' alleged violation where seller could not tender consideration].)
Since Plaintiff still possesses the securities, Plaintiff’s only remedy is rescission, which requires tender at any time before entry of judgment. (See Rechnitz Decl., ¶ 20.) Thus, proof of tender is necessary prior to entry of judgment.
Defendant Mobli Media is currently in default. The default judgment does not address them. (The proposed default judgment does not state it is against any defendant.)
Plaintiff also needs to provide dismissals for the does defendants and calculations of interest. (CRC Rule 3.1800(a).) Note that in a non-contracts case, prejudgment interest rate is 7% per annum. (Cal. Const. Art. 15 § 1; cf. Civ. Code § 3289.)