Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/06/2019 at 12:39:45 (UTC).

HACIENDA SENIOR VILLAS LP VS SBA 2012 TC ASSETS LLC

Case Summary

On 06/01/2016 HACIENDA SENIOR VILLAS LP filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against SBA 2012 TC ASSETS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2417

  • Filing Date:

    06/01/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HACIENDA SENIOR VILLAS L.P.

HACIENDA SENIOR VILLAS LP

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

SBA 2012 TC ASSETS LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

OSTER MATTHEW ESQ.

ROHATINER MARC ELIOT

Defendant Attorneys

[II] ALLEN MATKINS LECK ET AL. LLP

[I] ALLEN MATKINS LECK ET AL. LLP

 

Court Documents

SBA 2012 TC ASSETS, LLC'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

1/9/2018: SBA 2012 TC ASSETS, LLC'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE AND SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

1/9/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE AND SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

3/14/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT HACIENDA SENIOR VILLAS, L.P.'S ANSWER TO VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/16/2018: PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT HACIENDA SENIOR VILLAS, L.P.'S ANSWER TO VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

3/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

NOTICE OF ERRATA

3/20/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA

JOINT WITNESS LIST

6/8/2018: JOINT WITNESS LIST

Notice of Settlement

11/30/2018: Notice of Settlement

Unknown

12/3/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

1/17/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/12/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

7/12/2016: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

8/2/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

Unknown

8/2/2016: Unknown

Unknown

8/3/2016: Unknown

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

8/3/2016: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

NOTICE OF COURT'S TAKING CONFERENCE RE: POST-MEDIATION STATUS OFF CALENDAR

12/12/2016: NOTICE OF COURT'S TAKING CONFERENCE RE: POST-MEDIATION STATUS OFF CALENDAR

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal) of 01/17/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 37; Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Final Status Conference) of 12/03/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Notice of Settlement of Entire Case; Filed by Hacienda Senior Villas, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 37; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
66 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2016
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2016
  • SBA 2012 TC ASSETS, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2016
  • Answer; Filed by SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF WRITTEN LEASE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Hacienda Senior Villas, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC622417    Hearing Date: August 14, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: August 14, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC622417

CASE NAME: Hacienda Senior Villas LP v. SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff, Hacienda Senior Villas LP

TRIAL DATE: None – Court Ordered Dismissal January 17, 2019

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

OPPOSITION: None as of August 11, 2020

REPLY: No opposition filed.

TENTATIVE: Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to do all of the following: (1) Execute the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application to the County of Los Angeles for antenna upgrades; (2) Provide documentation reflecting that the individual signing the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application has authority to execute said document; (3) Provide an ownership disclosure with the names and addresses of the principal owners and/or partners in Hacienda; and (4) Provide the original signed and notarized corrected Second Amendment to Site Agreement.

Background

This action arises in connection with a property located at 1901 S. Azusa Parkway, Hacienda Heights, California 91745. (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff, Hacienda Senior Villas, LP (“Plaintiff”) is alleged to be the owner of the Subject Property. On March 30, 2004, Plaintiff allegedly entered into a Site Agreement with Spring PCS Assets, LLC (“Sprint”), which allowed Sprint to construct an antenna support structure on 520 square feet of the Subject Property in exchange for periodic rent payments. Thereafter, Sprint allegedly assigned its rights to Defendant, SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (“Defendant”). After Defendant was allegedly assigned Sprint’s rights under the Site Agreement, Defendant allegedly constructed its support structure on portions of the Subject Property not allowed under the Site Agreement and as such, encroached on the Subject Property.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of written lease, (2) ejectment, (3) trespass, (4) declaratory relief and (5) injunctive relief.

On January 9, 2018, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff. Defendant’s cross-complaint alleges that Plaintiff was in breach of the Site Agreement because it obstructed Defendant from performing modifications to the antenna structure build at the Subject Property and continuously refused to sign a Letter of Authorization (“LOA”) Defendant required for government approval and permits for its proposed work.

On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC adds factual allegations regarding Plaintiff providing Defendant notice that its modifications to the Subject Property were in breach of the Site Agreement. The FAC otherwise alleges the same causes of action as the original Complaint.

On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Unconditional Settlement of this action. On January 17, 2019, the court ordered Plaintiff’s Complaint dismissed without prejudice and specifically retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6 to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

Defendant now moves for an order enforcing the settlement Against Plaintiff and specifically, to require that Plaintiff do as follows:

1. Execute the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application to the County of Los Angeles for antenna upgrades;

2. Provide documentation reflecting that the individual signing the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application has authority to execute said document;

3. Provide an ownership disclosure with the names and addresses of the principal owners and/or partners in Hacienda; and

4. Provide the original signed and notarized corrected Second Amendment to Site Agreement.

(see Notice of Motion, 2.) No opposition has been filed to the instant motion.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, “if parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) The court must determine whether the settlement agreement is valid and binding. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1533.) “In order to be enforceable pursuant to the summary procedures of section 664.6, a settlement agreement must either be entered into orally before a court … or must be in writing and signed by the parties.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) Courts will not set aside a valid settlement agreement absent fraud, undue influence, or excusable neglect. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 260; see also Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 333, 339; Fraters Glass & Paint Co. v. Southwestern Const. Co. (1930) 107 Cal.App.1, 6.)

Defendants submits the declaration of Edward G. Roach (“Roach”) in support of its motion. Roach attests that he is Vice President of Legal Compliance with Defendant and is personally familiar with the information pertaining to this action. (Roach Decl. ¶ 1.) According to Roach, Plaintiff and Sprint entered into the Site Agreement on March 30, 2004 and a First Amendment to the Site Agreement on October 26, 2004. (Roach Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibits 1-2.) Sprint constructed and operated a “wireless communication facility” at the Subject Property pursuant to these agreements. (Id.) Thereafter, Sprint assigned its rights under the Site Agreement, as amended, to Tower Entity 4, LLC, which Defendant eventually acquired. (Roach Decl. ¶ 3.) Further, and according to Roach, Defendant contacted Plaintiff in 2014 to request that it execute certain paperwork for Los Angeles County permit approval and that instead of doing so, Plaintiff allegedly claimed for the first time that Sprint’s wireless communication facility was located outside of the agreed upon area and was an encroachment. (Roach Decl. ¶ 4.) Finally, although Plaintiff allegedly executed a LOA, Roach attests upon information and belief that this document is insufficient and that the following is required before Los Angeles County approves Defendant’s requests for “tower permit renewal and equipment upgrades” at the Subject Property:

  1. “A Land Use Application for antenna upgrades, including an “Owner’s consent” signed by Plaintiff’s representative;

  2. Documentation reflecting that the individual signing the “Owner’s Consent” has authority to execute the document,

  3. An ownership disclosure containing the names and addresses of the principal owners and/or partners in Hacienda; and

  4. The original signed and notarized Second amendment to Site Agreement.”

(Roach Decl. ¶ 4.)

Defendant also submits the declaration of its attorney, Rachel M. Sanders (“Sanders”) in support of the instant motion. Sanders attests that the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on November 30, 2018. (Sanders Decl. ¶ 2, exhibit A.) According to Sanders, Defense counsel has made multiple attempts over six months to get Plaintiff’s counsel to provide the various documents discussed above, to no avail. (Sanders Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibits B-D.) The Settlement Agreement provides as follows:

“2. Letter of Authorization. Hacienda agrees to execute a Letter of Authorization ("LOA") allowing for certain upgrades to be performed on the wireless equipment at the Site. The LOA is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and shall be executed concurrently with this Agreement. Hacienda further agrees to execute such Letters of Authorization as may be requested in the future by SBA, consistent with the Lease, as amended by the Lease Amendment.”

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and does not challenge Defendant’s arguments. As such, the court finds that Defendant’s submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a valid and enforceable settlement agreement and Plaintiff’s breach. Specifically, paragraph 2 of the Settlement Agreement, discussed above, demonstrates the parties’ intent for Plaintiff to execute any future documents as required by Defendant and consistent with the Site Agreement as amended. As such, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to provide the additional documents requested in this motion constitutes a breach of the Settlement Agreement.

For these reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to do all of the following: (1) Execute the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application to the County of Los Angeles for antenna upgrades; (2) Provide documentation reflecting that the individual signing the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application has authority to execute said document; (3) Provide an ownership disclosure with the names and addresses of the principal owners and/or partners in Hacienda; and (4) Provide the original signed and notarized corrected Second Amendment to Site Agreement.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to do all of the following: (1) Execute the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application to the County of Los Angeles for antenna upgrades; (2) Provide documentation reflecting that the individual signing the "Owner's Consent" portion of the Land Use Application has authority to execute said document; (3) Provide an ownership disclosure with the names and addresses of the principal owners and/or partners in Hacienda; and (4) Provide the original signed and notarized corrected Second Amendment to Site Agreement.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HACIENDA SENIOR VILLAS L.P. is a litigant

Latest cases where SBA 2012 TC ASSETS LLC is a litigant