On 06/03/2015 MICHAEL REACH filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against JOHN SPAHI, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD A. STONE, GERALD ROSENBERG, CRAIG D. KARLAN, LISA HART COLE and BARBARA R. JOHNSON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RICHARD A. STONE
CRAIG D. KARLAN
LISA HART COLE
BARBARA R. JOHNSON
APEX INVESTMENT GROUP LTD
CAVOUR PARTNERS LIMITED LLC
ENENSTEIN RIBAKOFF LAVINA & PHAM
HAMBERG KARIC EDWARDS & MARTIN LLP
JOHN PAUL HANNA A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
OCEAN TOWERS HOUSING CORP.
YOSHIKAWA KAZOU "KAY"
YOSHIKAWA KAZOU "KAY"
FREEDMAN & TAITELMAN
FREEDMAN & TAITELMAN
O'MELVENY & MYERS
ENENSTEIN RIBAKOFF LAVINA & PHAM
KENNETH C. FELDMAN
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
NASS LAW FIRM
MURPHY PEARSON BRADLEY & FEENEY
MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO
NEMECEK & COLE
ROBERT M. HELLER ESQ
KIMBALL JULIE Z.
FIRM NASS LAW
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
COZEN & O'CONNOR
VARNEN CRAIG I
7/20/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE
8/3/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION
11/24/2015: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2015-11-24 00:00:00
11/30/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: RESPONSE
4/26/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
8/23/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION
2/6/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION
4/18/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-04-18 00:00:00
10/23/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF APPLICATION OF MICHAEL EGGENBERGER TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE AND DECLARATION OF JOHN M. PIERCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF
11/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RE: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND DISC...)
8/15/2019: Notice - STATEMENT OF INTENT TO RESPOND TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT UPON LIFTING OF THE STAY IF REQUESTED BY COURT
7/6/2018: Response - To the Supplemental Statement
8/7/2018: Ex Parte Application - To Stay
9/19/2018: Other - - RECEIVER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR PAYMENT THEREOF
11/7/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)
12/19/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order), Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)]
5/2/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JEA
Hearing11/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
Hearing10/19/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing10/09/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Summary JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to StrikeRead MoreRead Less
Hearing02/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department O; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) (Re Motion for Summary Judgment) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 am in Department WEM, Richard A. Stone, Presiding; Affidavit of Prejudice - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Michael Reach (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMiscellaneous-Other (MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 170.6 ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2015-06-16 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by OCEAN TOWERS HOUSING CORPORATION (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Derivatively on behalf of Ocena Towers Housing Corporation (Plaintiff); Michael Reach (Plaintiff); OCEAN TOWERS HOUSING CORPORATION (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMiscellaneous-Other (Civil Deposit for Jury Fees ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC124263 Hearing Date: September 15, 2020 Dept: O
Case Name: Reach v. Spahi, et al.
Case No.: SC124263
Calendar #: 9
Complaint Filed: 6-3-15
Motion C/O: 7-11-21
Discovery C/O: 6-28-21
Trial Date: 7-26-21
SUBJECT: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ocean Towers Housing Corporation
RESP. PARTY: Defendant Joseph Orlando
Plaintiff OTHC’s Motion for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff complies with CRC Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading and identifies by line and page number those allegations being added or deleted from the operative complaint. See Dec. of D. Miller filed on 8-6-20, ¶¶2 and 4.
Plaintiff’s counsel testifies 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 the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Id. at ¶¶14-18. The amendment will add new causes of action for (1) violation of Penal Code §496 against Defendant Omar Spahi; (2) conversion against Defendants John Spahi, Joseph Orlando, Omar and Apex Investments Group Ltd.; (3) fraud against Spahi and Orlando; and (4) aiding and abetting fraud against Omar. Id. at ¶14. Plaintiff discovered the embezzlement of $6.2 million through the sham contractor Progressive Builders, Inc. in April 2020, after Wells Fargo produced documents in response to the HOA’s subpoenas. Id. at ¶16. Plaintiff attempted to obtain discovery regarding the issue directly from Defendants in May, but they responded with objections. Id. at ¶17. Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to amend on 8-6-20 after attempting to obtain a stipulation for leave to amend. Id. at ¶¶9-13.
A delay of 4 months since discovery of the new facts giving rise to the amendment is not undue delay. The trial date is set for July 2021. The 5th Amended Complaint contained allegations regarding Defendants misuse of HOA funds to make excessive payments to contractors for kickbacks to them personally. See Dec. of D. Miller filed on 8-6-20, ¶59(h) and (m). These new allegations expand upon the same general scheme of abusing contractor payments to include formation of a fake contractor entity to embezzle payments to Defendants for their personal use. Id. at ¶16.
Under these facts, leave to amend must be granted unless the Defendants can establish prejudice. “The trial court may, in its discretion, allow amendments ‘in furtherance of justice.’ (C.C.P. 473(a)(1).) The trial court has wide discretion in allowing amendment of pleadings and, as a matter of policy, the trial court's ruling will be upheld unless a manifest or gross abuse of discretion is shown. The policy of great liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding was declared at an early date and has been repeatedly restated.” 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008), Plead §1194. “Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown.” P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345. Prejudice exists, for example, where the plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial Id. (leave to amend properly denied where plaintiff offered no explanation for one-year delay in seeking leave to amend, amendment was requested after trial readiness conference, amendment would require additional discovery and amendment would likely trigger a demurrer or other pretrial motions); Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488 (“Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion”).
Defendants John and Omar Spahi did not oppose the motion. Defendant Orlando filed an opposition claiming prejudice due to (1) the loss of his right to file a x-complaint against Peter Alevizos and Sheldon Stein due to the Court’s approval of their good faith settlement on 2-28-20 per CCP §877.6(c) and (2) the loss of his right to seek arbitration due to relation back of the 6th Amended Complaint to the 5th Amended Complaint.
Defendant Orlando’s arguments in opposition do not establish the type of prejudice that would justify denying leave to amend under these circumstances. Orlando’s alleged loss of his right to x-complain against Alevizos’s and Stein’s good faith settlement is not prejudice attributable to the amendment or any undue delay, nor is the potential finding that he waived his right to arbitrate the new causes of action.
In addition, Orlando is incorrect that he would be able to “x-complain” against Alevizos and Stein if Plaintiff were forced to file the proposed amendment as a separate action. A “good faith” determination bars all claims for indemnification or contribution by nonsettling parties. Far West Fin'l Corp. v. D & S Co., Inc. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 815-816. This includes separate lawsuits for indemnity as well as indemnity cross-complaints in the underlying tort case. See Mid-Century Ins. Exch. v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 310, 315. Moreover, the words “indemnity” or “contribution” need not be used; the substance of the claim is determinative. See Cal-Jones Properties v. Evans Pac. Corp. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 324, 327-328.
Plaintiff did not unduly delay in seeking leave to amend. Orlando fails to demonstrate that he will be prejudiced if leave to amend were granted. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Sixth Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a copy of the Sixth Amended Complaint under separate cover today.
Case Number: SC124263 Hearing Date: June 30, 2020 Dept: O