This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 22:36:38 (UTC).

JAMES MACDONALD ET AL VS LONNIE MOORE ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/05/2016 JAMES MACDONALD filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against LONNIE MOORE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9428

  • Filing Date:

    02/05/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

JAMES MACDONALD TRUSTEE 914 TRUST

MACDONALD JAMES

JAMES MACDONALD CO-TRUSTEE 914 TRUST

Claimants

ARAZM SHEREEN

KOULES OREN

Respondents and Defendants

COOK ISLANDS TRUST LIMITED TRUSTEE 914

COOK ISLANDS TRUST LIMITED

LONNIE MOORE GRANTOR 914 TRUST

LONNIE MOORE PROTECTOR 914 TRUST

914 TRUST

MOORE LONNIE

COOK ISLANDS TRUST PROTECTORS LTD

DANA MOORE TRUSTEE 914 TRUST

MOORE DANA

WILL ANTHONY AN INVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE

DANA MOORE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE 914 TRUST

WILL ANTHONY DBA COOK ISLANDS TRUST LIMITED A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN COOK ISLANDS

DOLCE GROUP ATLANTA LLC

GEISHA HOUSE LLC

DOLCE GROUP LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN E HARGROVE

HARGROVE SUSAN E.

Claimant Attorney

KEMPINSKY LOUIS E. ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

DAVID SCOTT KADIN ESQ.

KADIN DAVID SCOTT ESQ.

SOFRIS MICHAEL N.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF LIEN (ATTACHMENT?ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

5/2/2018: NOTICE OF LIEN (ATTACHMENT?ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

Minute Order

6/27/2018: Minute Order

Order to Show Cause (Hearing)

2/28/2019: Order to Show Cause (Hearing)

Notice

3/25/2019: Notice

Opposition

4/3/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

4/9/2019: Minute Order

VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1) TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY; ETC

2/5/2016: VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1) TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY; ETC

SUMMONS

2/5/2016: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/11/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE TO SPECIALLY SET NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)

3/17/2016: ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE TO SPECIALLY SET NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)

EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE TO SPECIALLY SET RBTOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS); ETC.

3/17/2016: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE TO SPECIALLY SET RBTOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS); ETC.

Minute Order

3/17/2016: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF, JAMES MACDONALD'S OPPOSITION AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT, LONNIE MOORE'S MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE LIS PENDENS; ETC

4/7/2016: PLAINTIFF, JAMES MACDONALD'S OPPOSITION AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT, LONNIE MOORE'S MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE LIS PENDENS; ETC

DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS); DECLARATIONS OF LONNIE MOORE AND ANTONY WILL

4/13/2016: DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS); DECLARATIONS OF LONNIE MOORE AND ANTONY WILL

Minute Order

4/20/2016: Minute Order

RULING

4/20/2016: RULING

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE'S MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)

4/22/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE'S MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1) TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY 2) TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY; ETC.

4/29/2016: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1) TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY 2) TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY; ETC.

37 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Prosecute) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Opposition (OSC: Failure to Prosecute); Filed by James MacDonald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Notice (OF HEARING RE: OSC FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE); Filed by James MacDonald, Co-Trustee, 914 Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Order to Show Cause (Hearing); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48; Non-Appearance Case Review (Non-Appearance (Case Review); Proceedings Stayed) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-27 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • NOTICE OF LIEN (ATTACHMENT ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • Notice of Lien; Filed by Oren Koules (Claimant); Shereen Arazm (Claimant)

    Read MoreRead Less
85 More Docket Entries
  • 03/17/2016
  • EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE TO SPECIALLY SET RBTOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS); ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT LONNIE MOORE TO SPECIALLY SET NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • Order; Filed by Lonnie Moore (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Lonnie Moore (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2016
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1) TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by James MacDonald (Plaintiff); James MacDonald, Co-Trustee, 914 Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC609428    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff James MacDonald, individually and as co-trustee of the 914 Trust (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576. Plaintiff sought to conform the complaint to bankruptcy court rulings by dropping his claims and parties for the causes of action related to quiet title and 914 Trust trustee breaches, and to add or amend causes of action for indemnity, contribution, reimbursement of legal fees, payment of unpaid compensation, other unspecified damages, and punitive damages. Plaintiff also sought to add Shereen Arazm Koules (“Defendant”) as Doe 1, and he claimed that he discovered additional information about the alter ego relationships of Defendant and other defendants. On August 13, 2020, the Court granted the motion pursuant to section 473. On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed his SAC.

On November 30, 2020, Defendant filed this motion to quash service of summons on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot meet the criteria for naming a Doe defendant under Code of Civil Procedure 474. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 474 permits a plaintiff who is ignorant of the name of a defendant to name a Doe in a complaint, and then when the true name is discovered, amend the complaint. “Section 474 provides a method for adding defendants after the statute of limitations has expired, but this procedure is available only when the plaintiff is actually ignorant of the facts establishing a cause of action against the party to be substituted for a Doe defendant. (McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 371-372.) “Improper service of a defendant under section 474 may be attacked by a motion to quash.” (Id. at p. 375.)

Defendant argues that the SAC is based on new facts and claims, so it does not meet the criteria for substituting a Doe defendant under section 474. (Motion at p. 12.) And she argues that the alter ego allegations are virtually identical to Plaintiff’s allegations in James MacDonald v. Dolce Group LLC, et al., Case No. BC516094 in 2013 and 2014, so Defendant did not recently discover her true name. (Id. at p. 13.) Defendant argues that the looting allegations also appeared in James MacDonald v. Louis E. Kemoinsky, et al., Case No. BC635970 in 2016. (Id. at p. 15.)

While a plaintiff must be genuinely ignorant of a defendant’s identity when he files the original complaint in order to amend under section 474, that requirement is not present in section 473. Plaintiff sought leave to file the SAC under section 473. The plain language of section 473 authorizes the Court to “allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding . . . the name of any party . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

In the notice of motion, Defendant also contends that she was not properly identified in the summons as Doe 1, rendering the summons defective. (Motion at p. 3.) Defendant does not further brief this issue in the motion. In her reply, Defendant contends that the defective summons is a jurisdictional defect that serves as a separate basis to quash the service of summons. (Reply at p. 6.) When a defendant is sued by a fictitious name, the summons must state, “To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or proceedings) as (or on behalf of) the person sued under the fictitious name of (designating it),” and state the fictitious name under which such defendant was served and the fact that notice of identity was given by endorsement upon the document served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 474.) However, in the SAC, Defendant was no longer sued by a fictious name. Rather, Plaintiff identified Defendant by name in the general allegations as well as with each cause of action and added Defendant pursuant to section 473, so that requirement of section 474 did not apply.

To the extent Defendant is making a statute of limitations argument – that it is too late for Plaintiff to assert the allegations in the SAC against Defendant – this motion to quash the service of summons is not the proper procedure.

Accordingly, the motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

Case Number: BC609428    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff James MacDonald, individually and as co-trustee of 914 Trust (“Plaintiff”), filed a first amended complaint against defendants Lonnie Moore (“Moore”); 914 Trust; Cook Islands Trust Limited, trustee of 914 Trust; Cook Islands Trust Limited; Cook Islands Trust Protectors Ltd.; Antony Will dba Cook Island Trust Limited; Dana Moore, individually and as successor trustee of 914 Trust; 914 Partners, Ltd.; Dolce Group LLC; Geisha House LLC; Dolce Group Concepts LLC; Dolce Group Atlanta LLC, and Doe defendants, for quiet title and causes of action concerning the 914 Trust.

On September 19, 2016, the Court stayed the action pending a bankruptcy action. In the bankruptcy action, the bankruptcy court ordered the sale of the property that was at issue in the quiet title causes of action. The bankruptcy court also determined that the 914 Trust was void. On July 17, 2019, the bankruptcy court granted Plaintiff’s request for relief from the stay to pursue his claims in this court.

The Court lifted the stay in this action on October 7, 2019. Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on March 10, 2020. No party filed an opposition.

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff’s motion identifies the allegations to be added and includes a copy of the proposed second amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to conform with the bankruptcy court’s rulings by dropping his claims and parties for the causes of action related to quiet title and 914 Trust trustee breaches. (Motion at p. 3.) And he seeks to add or amend causes of action for indemnity, contribution, reimbursement of legal fees, payment of unpaid compensation, other unspecified damages, and punitive damages.

In addition, Plaintiff identified Shereen Arazm Koules (“Arazm”), owner of Defendants Geisha House LLC and Dolce Group Atlanta LLC, as Doe 1. (Id. at pp. 4, 9.) Plaintiff states he discovered that Moore and Arazm failed to pay their obligated premiums for insurance after Moore’s bankruptcy. (Hargrove Decl. ¶ 8; MacDonald Decl. ¶ 8.) Before that, Plaintiff expected that they would indemnify him under their contractual obligations. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also discovered through the bankruptcy proceedings that Moore and Arazm allegedly looted the entities of over $2.7 million. (Ibid.) And he claims he discovered additional information about the alter ego relationships of Defendants. Plaintiff has adequately shown grounds for leave to amend the complaint.

In a notice of related case, Arazm argues Plaintiff has known the facts supporting her identity as Doe 1 and the new alter ego allegations for years. She argues the motion for leave to amend to name her as a defendant in this action is a sham. A notice of related case is not the proper procedure for challenging the addition of a Doe defendant.

The motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within five court days of this order. Given the age of this case, Plaintiff is to serve the Second Amended Complaint on all Defendants forthwith.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DOLCE GROUP ATLANTA LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where GEISHA HOUSE LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Cook Islands Trust Ltd is a litigant