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, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
SILVERLAKE PARK LLC
FIRST CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LL
RONE OREN; SHERR LLC
VC VISIONS LLC
OR SARA BEN
ALEXANDRA ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
STEINBERG S. KEVEN
THOMPSON COE & O'MEARA
WEIMAN EDWARD ELLIS
WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO SCHULMAN & RABKIN
ANNIE S. AMARAL
ROSEN DAVID ERIC
GOLDBERG STEPHEN J.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP
AMARAL ANNIE S.
BRINEN JOSHUA D
MURPHY ROSEN MEYLAN & DAVITT
SHACKELFORD JOEL THOMAS
GOLDBERG STEPHEN J
WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO SCHULMAN & RABKIN
11/2/2015: Legacy Document
1/22/2016: Minute Order
3/4/2016: Legacy Document
6/22/2016: Legacy Document
12/9/2016: Legacy Document
1/30/2017: Legacy Document
2/1/2017: Legacy Document
3/13/2017: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
6/22/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
2/8/2018: Legacy Document
2/13/2018: Legacy Document
2/21/2018: Legacy Document
2/21/2018: Legacy Document
3/20/2018: Legacy Document
9/27/2018: Legacy Document
6/5/2019: Ex Parte Application
6/21/2019: Ex Parte Application
Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement; Filed by VC Visions, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Final Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR ORDER GRANTING SEPARATE TRIAL AS TO DEFENDANTS FIRST CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC; SUNEET SINGAL; VC VISIONS, LLC; ALEXANDRIA ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC; AND JOSEPH GUGLIELMO) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Memorandum (Final Pre-Trial Conference Statement); Filed by Sherr, LLC (Defendant); Emmet Inc. (Defendant); Rasbe, Inc. (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (to Ex Parte Application of of Plaintiff); Filed by Sherr, LLC (Defendant); Emmet Inc. (Defendant); Rasbe, Inc. (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR ...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by First Capital Real Estate Investments, LL (Defendant); Suneet Singal (Defendant); VC Visions, LLC (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as CounselRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Continue TrialRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (FOR ORDER GRANTING SEPARATE TRIAL AS TO DEFENDANTS FIRST CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC; SUNEET SINGAL; VC VISIONS, LLC; ALEXANDRIA ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC; AND JOSEPH GUGLIELMO); Filed by Silverlake Park, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Silverlake Park, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Former Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Silverlake Park, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Silverlake Park, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
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
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).)
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
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.
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.)
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases