This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 04:14:02 (UTC).

7447 FIRESTONE, LLC VS SHENG MA, LLC.,

Case Summary

On 02/16/2017 7447 FIRESTONE, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SHENG MA, LLC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A. and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9073

  • Filing Date:

    02/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

7447 FIRESTONE LLC

7447 FIRESTONE LLC.

7447 FIRESTONE LLC. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

BABAZADEH RABIN

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

SHENG MA LLC

ZHOU NING

LI XIAOMEI

SHENG MA LLC.

SHENG MA LLC. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

TEHRANI NEGAR

HELMI ESQ. SAM

HELMI-KABIR SAM SAM

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LUAN STEVE XIAO MING ESQ.

LUAN STEVE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/16/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

5/3/2017: Unknown

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

5/22/2017: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Case Management Statement

6/5/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

1/24/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/2/2018: Unknown

Opposition

3/13/2018: Opposition

Unknown

3/16/2018: Unknown

Notice

5/18/2018: Notice

Unknown

6/19/2018: Unknown

Tentative Ruling

7/2/2018: Tentative Ruling

Case Management Statement

7/23/2018: Case Management Statement

Complaint

8/29/2018: Complaint

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/2/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Case Management Statement

10/12/2018: Case Management Statement

Reply

10/29/2018: Reply

Order

11/7/2018: Order

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

78 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2019
  • Reply to Opposition; Filed by SHENG MA, LLC., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Reply to Opposition; Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by 7447 FIRESTONE, LLC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Answer; Filed by 7447 FIRESTONE LLC., a California Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant); Rabin Babazadeh, (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by SHENG MA, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike ((Legacy)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
204 More Docket Entries
  • 02/21/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by 7447 FIRESTONE, LLC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Summons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2008
  • Notice of Continuance; Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2008
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Defendant and Cross-Complainant

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069073    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: O

Defendants Sheng Ma, LLC, XiaoMei Li and Ning Zhou’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

Introduction

On June 13, 2019, Defendants Sheng Ma, LLC, XiaoMei Li, and Ning Zhou (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication on the causes of action for Breach of Contract, Violation of Civil Code § 1102 et seq., Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, and Fraud in the Inducement [1] in Plaintiff 7447 Firestone, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed its Opposition on January 23, 2020, and Defendants filed their Reply on [DATE]. The Court held a hearing on May 28, 2020, and took the matter under submission. The Court hereby finds as follows:

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 9. All other objections are overruled.

Legal Standard

A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP 437c(p)(2).) “A defendant can satisfy its burden by presenting evidence that negates an element of the cause of action or evidence that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably expect to obtain evidence needed to support an element of the cause of action.” (Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 175, 186.) The court must liberally construe evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

As an initial matter, the court critically notes that Defendants’ motion failed to comply with the format requirements of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication under CRC 3.1350. Particularly problematic is the improper format of the Separate Statement. For reasons unknown to the court, Defendants had made assertions regarding whether certain facts in the Separate Statement were disputed or undisputed. While the court appreciates Defendants’ honesty in disclosing unfavorable facts, Defendants have only weakened their case for granting summary judgment/adjudication. Thus, the court unfortunately cannot consider facts that are in dispute which would support Defendants’ assertions.

At the center of Defendants’ arguments is the issue of whether they had disclosed known problems, including an issue of continued vandalism, with the property located at 350 N. Garey Avenue, Pomona, California (the “Property”). This fact is the crux of Defendants’ contentions regarding all causes of action: if there is no dispute, then Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication of the causes of action in Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). The court will first deal with whether a dispute of fact exists as to whether Defendants did disclose material facts in order to globally address all the causes of action raised in their Motion. Particularly, Defendants’ arguments for the Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action are all based on this same issue of fact. Thus, a finding whether an issue of fact exists as to Issue 1 would also address whether issues of fact exists as to the Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action.

Issue 1: Whether Defendants disclosed material facts regarding problems of continued vandalism to the Property

Defendants attempt to meet their burden under CCP § 437c by showing facts that they disclosed known problems with the Property, including the continued vandalism. Particularly, Defendants point to the fact that the Property Information Sheet provided to Plaintiff on or about October 12, 2016 disclosed all potential problems that Defendants knew at that time, including equipment damages, debris in the pool, and that Defendants made insurance claims for personal property along with police reports of breaking and entering. (DSS 4.) However, this particular fact was one which Defendants claimed that it was only undisputed in part, implying that there was a dispute as to this fact. In fact, Plaintiff’s Opposition contends that Defendants concealed the severity of the problem. Particularly, Plaintiff points to the sixty-six service calls made on the Property between January 1, 2015 and October 12, 2016 for incidents of trespassing, felony vandalism, and burglary. (PSS 5.)

Thus, it cannot be said that Defendants have met their burden to show that it disclosed material facts regarding the Property, and summary adjudication on this issue is DENIED.

Issue 2: Whether Defendants breached any contract (1st Cause of Action)

Additionally, Defendants also contend that they did not breach any contract.

To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, plaintiff needs to demonstrate the following elements: (1) the existence or formation of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)

Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable for a breach of contract cause of action because they did not breach any agreement between them and Plaintiff. Particularly, they complied with the requirements to disclose the continued problems. Defendants even did a “walk-through” of the Property with Plaintiff where the parties observed leaks and other signs of vandalism in January 9, 2017 a month before the closing date. (DSS 7.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff decided not to terminate the agreement despite it having the right to do so before the closing date, and after the parties even mutually agreed to extend the closing date a few months. (DSS 6-9.) Instead, Defendants contend that Plaintiff breached the contract when it failed to close the transaction on February 2, 2017. (DSS 9.) Furthermore, the terms of the agreement clearly stated that Plaintiff was purchasing the Property “as is.” (DSS 8.) Thus, Defendants have met their burden and the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a dispute of material fact under CCP § 437c.

Plaintiff attempts to meet its burden by showing that there is a dispute of fact as to whether a full and prompt disclosure occurred. Again, Plaintiff points to facts that show Defendants knew that there were break-ins before October 12, 2016. (PSS 5-7.) Furthermore, Plaintiff had already released the deposit to Defendants before the January 9, 2017 walk-through, and thus, the Defendants had already breached the contract before Plaintiff even observed the vandalism personally. (PSS 8.) A month after the release of the escrow deposit, Defendant Li signed an addendum to the Property Information Sheet, disclosing for the first time the “continued vandalism” problem at the Property. (PSS 9.)

Since there is a dispute of fact, summary adjudication on this issue is DENIED.

Issue 3: Whether Defendants complied with the requirements of Civil Code § 1102 et seq. (2nd Cause of Action)

Civil Code § 1102 et seq. requires a seller of real property to disclose known material defects that would impact the price of the real property to the buyer. (Civ. Code §§ 1102.1; 1102.3) When the seller’s real estate agent or broker is aware of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property which are known or accessible only to him, he or she is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. (Holmes v. Summer (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510, .)

As discussed above under Issue 1, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that no dispute of fact exists as to their disclosure regarding the Property. Thus, summary adjudication is DENIED.

Issue 4 & 5: Whether Defendants violated Business and Professions Code § 17200 or committed fraud in the inducement (3rd and 5th Causes of Action)

The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.) An unlawful business practice or act is an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by law. (Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 965, 969; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1143.) Even a single incident – a on-time act that is unfair, unlawful or fraudulent – is sufficient to state a claim under 17200. (Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc., supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th at 969 fn. 3.)

The elements for fraud are (1) a misrepresentation made to plaintiff, (2) defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the statement, (3) defendant made the statement with the intent to defraud or did not care about the falsity of the statement, (4) plaintiff justifiably relied on the false statement, and (5) that reliance caused damage to plaintiff. (Civ. Cod § 1709; see also Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.)

Again, Defendants failed to demonstrate that it undisputedly disclosed all material facts relating to the Property.

Summary adjudication of these issues are DENIED.


[1] The court notes that Defendants failed to address the sixth cause of action for Rescission. Thus, the court cannot grant summary adjudication on this cause of action, and therefore also cannot grant summary judgment.

Case Number: KC069073    Hearing Date: May 28, 2020    Dept: O

Defendants Sheng Ma, LLC, XiaoMei Li and Ning Zhou’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

Introduction

On June 13, 2019, Defendants Sheng Ma, LLC, XiaoMei Li, and Ning Zhou (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication on the causes of action for Breach of Contract, Violation of Civil Code section 1102 et seq., Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Fraud in the Inducement [1] in Plaintiff 7447 Firestone, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  Plaintiff filed its Opposition on January 23, 2020, and Defendants filed their Reply on [DATE].  The Court held a hearing on May 28, 2020, and took the matter under submission.  The Court hereby finds as follows:

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 9.  All other objections are overruled.

Legal Standard

A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established.  (CCP 437c(p)(2).)  “A defendant can satisfy its burden by presenting evidence that negates an element of the cause of action or evidence that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably expect to obtain evidence needed to support an element of the cause of action.”  (Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 175, 186.)  The court must liberally construe evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

As an initial matter, Defendants’ motion failed to comply with the format requirements of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication under California Rules of Court 3.1350.  In particular, the Separate Statement is formatted improperly.  Moreover, the Court cannot consider facts that are in dispute which would support Defendants’ assertions.

At the center of Defendants’ arguments is the issue of whether they had disclosed known problems, including an issue of continued vandalism, with the property located at 350 N. Garey Avenue, Pomona, California (the “Property”).  This fact is the crux of Defendants’ contentions regarding all causes of action:  if there is no dispute, then Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication of the causes of action in Plaintiff’s FAC.  The Court will first deal with whether a dispute of fact exists as to whether Defendants did disclose material facts in order to globally address all the causes of action raised in their Motion.  Particularly, Defendants’ arguments for the Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action are all based on this same issue of fact.  Thus, a finding whether an issue of fact exists as to Issue 1 would also address whether issues of fact exists as to the Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action.

Issue 1:  Whether Defendants disclosed material facts regarding problems of continued vandalism to the Property

Defendants attempt to meet their burden under section 437c by showing facts that they disclosed known problems with the Property, including the continued vandalism.  Particularly, Defendants point to the fact that the Property Information Sheet provided to Plaintiff on or about October 12, 2016 disclosed all potential problems that Defendants knew at that time, including equipment damages, debris in the pool, and that Defendants made insurance claims for personal property along with police reports of breaking and entering.  (DSS 4.)  However, this particular fact was one which Defendants claimed that it undisputed in part, implying that there was a dispute as to this fact.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s Opposition contends that Defendants concealed the severity of the problem.  Particularly, Plaintiff points to the sixty-six service calls made on the Property between January 1, 2015 and October 12, 2016 for incidents of trespassing, felony vandalism, and burglary.  (PSS 5.)

Thus, it cannot be said that Defendants have met their burden to show that it disclosed material facts regarding the Property, and summary adjudication on this issue is DENIED.

Issue 2:  Whether Defendants breached any contract (1st Cause of Action)

Additionally, Defendants also contend that they did not breach any contract. 

To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, plaintiff needs to demonstrate the following elements: (1) the existence or formation of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)

Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable for a breach of contract cause of action because they did not breach any agreement between them and Plaintiff.  Particularly, they complied with the requirements to disclose the continued problems.  Defendants even did a “walk-through” of the Property with Plaintiff where the parties observed leaks and other signs of vandalism in January 9, 2017 a month before the closing date.  (DSS 7.)  Defendants contend that Plaintiff decided not to terminate the agreement despite it having the right to do so before the closing date, and after the parties even mutually agreed to extend the closing date a few months.  (DSS 6-9.)  Instead, Defendants contend that Plaintiff breached the contract when it failed to close the transaction on February 2, 2017.  (DSS 9.)  Furthermore, the terms of the agreement clearly stated that Plaintiff was purchasing the Property “as is.”  (DSS 8.)  Thus, Defendants have met their burden and the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a dispute of material fact under CCP § 437c.

Plaintiff attempts to meet its burden by showing that there is a dispute of fact as to whether a full and prompt disclosure occurred.  Again, Plaintiff points to facts that show Defendants knew that there were break-ins before October 12, 2016.  (PSS 5-7.)  Furthermore, Plaintiff had already released the deposit to Defendants before the January 9, 2017 walk-through, and thus, the Defendants had already breached the contract before Plaintiff even observed the vandalism personally.  (PSS 8.)  A month after the release of the escrow deposit, Defendant Li signed an addendum to the Property Information Sheet, disclosing for the first time the “continued vandalism” problem at the Property.  (PSS 9.)

Since there is a dispute of fact, summary adjudication on this issue is DENIED.

Issue 3:  Whether Defendants complied with the requirements of Civil Code § 1102 et seq. (2nd Cause of Action)

Civil Code section 1102 et seq. requires a seller of real property to disclose known material defects that would impact the price of the real property to the buyer.  (Civ. Code §§ 1102.1, 1102.3.)  When the seller’s real estate agent or broker is aware of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property which are known or accessible only to him, he or she is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.  (Holmes v. Summer (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510.)

As discussed above under Issue 1, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that no dispute of fact exists as to their disclosure regarding the Property.  Thus, summary adjudication is DENIED.

Issue 4 & 5:  Whether Defendants violated Business and Professions Code § 17200 or committed fraud in the inducement (3rd and 5th Causes of Action)

The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.)  An unlawful business practice or act is an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by law.  (Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 965, 969; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1143.)  Even a single incident – a on-time act that is unfair, unlawful or fraudulent – is sufficient to state a claim under 17200.  (Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc., supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th at 969 fn. 3.)

The elements for fraud are (1) a misrepresentation made to plaintiff, (2) defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the statement, (3) defendant made the statement with the intent to defraud or did not care about the falsity of the statement, (4) plaintiff justifiably relied on the false statement, and (5) that reliance caused damage to plaintiff.  (Civ. Cod § 1709; see also Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.)

Again, Defendants failed to demonstrate that it undisputedly disclosed all material facts relating to the Property.

Summary adjudication of these issues are DENIED.


[1] The Court notes that Defendants failed to address the sixth cause of action for Rescission.  Thus, the Court cannot grant summary adjudication on this cause of action and, therefore, cannot grant summary judgment.