This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/17/2021 at 19:46:13 (UTC).

SILVERLAKE PARK, LLC VS FIRST CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT

Case Summary

On 10/07/2015 SILVERLAKE PARK, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FIRST CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4850

  • Filing Date:

    10/07/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross Defendants

SILVERLAKE PARK LLC

L.A. DEPOSITIONS INC.

RASBE INC.

SHERR LLC

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE JERRY NAMBA

NAMBA JERRY

EMMET INC. FKA EMMET INC.

FIRST CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LL

SINGAL SUNEET

OREN RONI

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Appellant

OREN RONE

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

FIRST CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LL

SINGAL SUNEET

EMMET INC.

RONE OREN; SHERR LLC

OREN RONE

VC VISIONS LLC

RASBE INC.

OREN EDNA

OR SARA BEN

SHERR LLC

GUGLIEMO JOSEPH

ALEXANDRA ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT

NAMBA JERRY

EMMET INC. FKA EMMET INC.

Not Classified By Court

RONE OREN

16 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

STEINBERG S. KEVEN

SACKS LEE

THOMPSON COE & O'MEARA

WEIMAN EDWARD ELLIS

WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO SCHULMAN & RABKIN

ROHATINER MARC ELIOT

ANNIE S. AMARAL

ROSEN DAVID ERIC

GOLDBERG STEPHEN J.

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP

AMARAL ANNIE S.

BRINEN JOSHUA D

MURPHY ROSEN MEYLAN & DAVITT

JOSHUA BRINEN

SHACKELFORD JOEL THOMAS

PALMIERI DENNIS

GOLDBERG STEPHEN J

SOFRIS MICHAEL

Respondent Attorney

STEELMAN RICHARD P. JR.

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO SCHULMAN & RABKIN

3 More Attorneys Available

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: RELIEF FROM JURY WAIVER; AGREEMENT TO ATTEND TRIAL

11/18/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: RELIEF FROM JURY WAIVER; AGREEMENT TO ATTEND TRIAL

Statement of the Case

11/18/2019: Statement of the Case

Objection - OBJECTION (EVIDENTIARY) TO DEFENDANT RONE OREN'S EX PARTE APPLICATION AND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1/29/2020: Objection - OBJECTION (EVIDENTIARY) TO DEFENDANT RONE OREN'S EX PARTE APPLICATION AND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

2/20/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/14/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

11/2/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2016-01-22 00:00:00

1/22/2016: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2016-01-22 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER

3/4/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION AND ORDER

6/22/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION AND ORDER

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

12/9/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

1/30/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/22/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF MOTION

2/21/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF MOTION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS-OTHER

2/21/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS-OTHER

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Compel

3/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Compel

Legacy Document -

9/27/2018: Legacy Document -

Notice - Notice of Unavailability of Counsel

11/7/2018: Notice - Notice of Unavailability of Counsel

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE

6/5/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE

439 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/23/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Rone Oren (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Ruling After Hearing on Motion to Strike); Filed by Rone Oren (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • DocketAppellate Order Extending Time for Reporter Transcript Prep (NOA: 8/31/20 B307446); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Jerry Namba's Election To Use Appendix Pursuant To Cal. Rule 8.124, or, alternatively, order granting Rone Oren leave to use Clerk's Transcript Pursuant to Cal. Rule 8.122) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Strike Jerry Namba's Election To Use App...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketReply (Rone Oren?s Reply to Jerry Namba?s Opposition to Motion To Strike Jerry Namba?s Notice of Election To Use Appendix Pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 8.124, or alternatively, Motion for an Order permitting Appellant Rone Oren to Elect to Use a Clerk?s); Filed by Rone Oren (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketObjection (Objection to Declaration of Ricky Steelman); Filed by Rone Oren (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Rone Oren (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Jerry Namba (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • DocketObjection (JERRY NAMBA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RONE OREN?S MOTION TO STRIKE JERRY NAMBA?S NOTICE ELECTING TO USE AN APPENDIX ON APPEAL); Filed by Jerry Namba (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
758 More Docket Entries
  • 11/12/2015
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Silverlake Park, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2015
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Former Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Silverlake Park, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Silverlake Park, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2015
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2015
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2015
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2015
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC124850    Hearing Date: April 14, 2021    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Silverlake Park, LLC v. First Capital Real Estate Investment

CASE NO.: SC124850

MOTION: Motion to Strike

HEARING DATE: 04/14/2021

Legal Standard

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 436 & 437.) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.) Code of Civil Procedure section 436 explicitly provides, “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. [or] (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436 [emphasis added].) An “immaterial allegation” means “irrelevant matter” as that term is used in Section 436. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10(c).) “An immaterial allegation in a pleading is any of the following: (1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense. (2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense. (3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10(b).)

ANALYSIS

The Trustee has shown that it is an appropriate party in this lawsuit. “[O]nce the bankruptcy petition was filed, the property of the Corporation became the property of the estate, and the trustee—not the debtor—had the sole capacity to represent the estate and sue or be sued. [Citations omitted.]” (Curtis v. Kellogg & Andelson (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 492, 506.) In addition, “the bankruptcy estate includes all of the debtor's legal and equitable interest in property as of the commencement of the case, including choses in action. (11 U.S.C. § 541.)” (Ibid.) In this suit, Silverlake Park, LLC obtained a judgment against Defendants Rasbe, Inc., Sherr, LLC, and Emmet Inv., Inc. (See 12/05/2019 Judgment.) The Trustee contends that since Oren seeks to have the Trustee’s pending litigation deemed released and dismissed, the Trustee is an adverse party to Oren and is aggrieved, such that it can make the election. Therefore, the motion to strike is denied.

Case Number: SC124850    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Silverlake Park, LLC, et al. v. First Capital Real Estate Investment

CASE NUMBER: SC124850

MOTION: Motion to enforce settlement agreement

Background

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Silverlake Park, LLC ("Silverlake") filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement between Silverlake and Defendant Rone Oren ("Oren") and for the entry of judgment. Plaintiff argues that the parties settled this matter on December 2, 2019, and documented the settlement in a fully executed Short Form Agreement. The short form agreement called for the entry of a stipulated judgment against Oren in the amount of $11,000,000.00 following the execution of a further, Long Form Agreement. Silverlake argues the Oren has refused to finalize the Long Form Agreement. Silverlake argues that the Short Form Agreement expressly provides that it may be enforced pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Silverlake seeks an order pursuant to section 664.6 to enforce the agreement and for the entry of judgment in the amount of $11,000,000.00 consistent with its terms.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) “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.” (Id.)

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.) The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) The Court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “Parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.)

Analysis

In their moving papers, Silverlake argues that it does not have to show that Oren breached the settlement agreement for the court to enforce that agreement. As stated in Hines v. Lukes, (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185, “the statutory language makes it clear, however, that a party moving for the entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute.” The party, however, must present evidence of the settlement agreement. Here, Silverlake included the Short Form Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 1 to the Weiman declaration.

Oren argues that the Court cannot enforce the Short Form Settlement Agreement because the Agreement contemplates the execution of the Long Form Agreement, and the parties have not yet agreed on the terms of the Long Form Agreement. Oren further argues that the Long Form Agreement was to have language on mutual general releases as well as confidentiality clauses that the Short Form Agreement does not contain. Finally, Oren argues that the parties did not authorize this Court to enter a judgment without the Long Form Agreement, the Stipulation, or an agreed upon Judgment. (See Short Form Agreement ¶¶ 9-10.)

Paragraph 2A of the Short Form Agreement states:

Silverlake will file a Stipulation for Judgment and Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (“Judgment”) in the amount of Eleven Million Dollars ($11,000,000.00) concurrently with the execution of the Long Form Agreement to be prepared in connection with the Settlement Agreement. Oren will execute the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment concurrently with the long form version of this Settlement Agreement.

(Short Form Settlement Agreement ¶ 2A.) Paragraph 12 of the Short Form Agreement states:

“The Parties agree that the terms of the settlement set forth in this Agreement and the long form agreement may be enforced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and the court in the Silverlake Action shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms set forth herein. This Agreement and all attachments hereto shall be admissible in connection with any proceeding to enforce this Agreement.” (Short Form Settlement Agreement ¶ 12. [emphasis added.])

The first sentence in Paragraph 12 of the Short Form Agreement indicates that the entire terms of the settlement agreement are in both that agreement and the Long Form Agreement. The Short Form Agreement contains the material terms of the settlement. While paragraph 11 of the Short Form Agreement states that this Court “shall resolve any disputes arising of the language of the draft long form agreement[,]” “nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.’ [Citation.]” (Steller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 175, 180 [citing Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.]) Paragraph 2A of this agreement acknowledges that there will be a “long form version of this Settlement agreement.” Paragraphs 9 and 10 set forth the parties’ agreement as to the material terms of the Long Term Agreement, namely, that it will contain standard confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, as well as mutual general releases. Paragraph 11 specifically grants the Court the authority to resolve any issues as to the Long Form Agreement.

Here, the parties represented to the Court that the matter was settled pursuant to a binding agreement, that the Court would maintain jurisdiction over the agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and that the parties would subsequently execute a long form agreement, that would add standard language regarding releases, confidentiality and non-disparagement. The facts here are remarkedly similar to those in Blix St. Records, Inc. v. Cassidy, (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 39. As in Blix, the Court relied upon the parties’ representations that there was an enforceable settlement, which was supported by the signed Short Form Agreement. (Blix St. Records, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th at 48.) “When parties intend that an agreement be binding, the fact that a more formal agreement must be prepared and executed does not alter the validity of the agreement.” (Id. at 48-49). Moreover, the Short Form Agreement sets forth the additional material terms of the Long Form Agreement – standard release, non-disparagement and confidentiality language. The Court is willing to insert this standard language into any Long Form Agreement to complete the parties’ agreement.

Defendant has had numerous opportunities to execute a Long Form Agreement including the standard language set forth above, yet has attempted to add new material terms to the Long Form Agreement. The Court would permit Defendant one last opportunity to sign the Long Form Agreement consistent with the Court’s findings, but if not, judgment must be entered. If Defendant does not want this chance, however, the Court would enforce the monetary terms of the Short Form Agreement and enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor for $11,000,000.00.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Emmet Inv, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Sherr, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Rasbe, Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where First Capital Real Estate Investments LLC is a litigant