This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/06/2021 at 02:45:20 (UTC).

FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS LA ART SHOW, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/12/2020 FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LA ART SHOW, INC , A FLORIDA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2346

  • Filing Date:

    06/12/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

LA ART SHOW INC. A FLORIDA CORPORATION

PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW INC. A FLORIDA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

CROWTHER ROBYN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

GOULD JACOB

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING

12/17/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING

Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SCOTT DIAMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW INCS SUR RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SUR REPLAY TO

9/17/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SCOTT DIAMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW INCS SUR RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SUR REPLAY TO

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATIONS' SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE O

9/4/2020: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATIONS' SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE O

Reply - REPLY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWLERY AND ANTIQUE SHOW INC. REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/20/2020: Reply - REPLY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWLERY AND ANTIQUE SHOW INC. REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SAM DIAMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWLERY AND ANTIQUE SHOW INC. REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF S

8/20/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SAM DIAMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWLERY AND ANTIQUE SHOW INC. REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF S

Answer

8/24/2020: Answer

Proof of Service by Mail

7/22/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

7/22/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/24/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/30/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

7/30/2020: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Declaration - DECLARATION OF SCOTT DIAMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW INC. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/30/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SCOTT DIAMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW INC. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JANE GLASSMAN IN SUPPORT OF FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION'S OPPOSITION TO SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW, INC.'S MOTION TO QUAS

8/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JANE GLASSMAN IN SUPPORT OF FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION'S OPPOSITION TO SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW, INC.'S MOTION TO QUAS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF KELLY CHAMP IN SUPPORT OF FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION'S OPPOSITION TO SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW, INC.'S MOTION TO QUASH

8/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF KELLY CHAMP IN SUPPORT OF FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION'S OPPOSITION TO SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH JEWELRY & ANTIQUE SHOW, INC.'S MOTION TO QUASH

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/14/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/12/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

6/12/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Notice of Case Management Conference

6/16/2020: Notice of Case Management Conference

43 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/23/2021
  • Hearing08/23/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • Hearing08/16/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • Hearing05/27/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2021
  • Docketat 09:45 AM in Department 58; Status Conference ((All-Purpose; Post-Mediation Status Conference)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference (All-Purpose; Post-Mediation Status Confere...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 58; Status Conference ((All-Purpose; OSC Re Dismissal for Plaintiff's Failure to Appear)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference (All-Purpose; OSC Re Dismissal for Plaintif...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Joint Stipulated Protective Order Restricting Use and Disclosure of Confidential Information and Materials; Order); Filed by LA ART SHOW, INC., a Florida corporation (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LA ART SHOW, INC., a Florida corporation (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference ((All-Purpose; OSC ReDismissal of Unnamed Does and Unserved Defendants)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
48 More Docket Entries
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by LA ART SHOW, INC., a Florida corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LA ART SHOW, INC., a Florida corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by FINE ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV22346    Hearing Date: September 28, 2020    Dept: 58

Hearing Date: September 28, 2020

Case Name: Fine Art Dealers Association v. LA Art Show, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV22346

Matter: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Defendant Palm Beach Jewelry & Antique Show, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Fine Art Dealers Association


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Quash is denied.


On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) fraudulent concealment, and (4) an accounting. The allegations of the Complaint are as follows. In June 2012, Plaintiff Fine Art Dealers Association (“FADA”) agreed to sell its rights to the LA Art Show to Defendant LA Art Show, Inc. (“LAAS”) pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement (“Purchase Agreement”). Among other benefits under the Purchase Agreement, FADA was to receive “three percent (3%) of all gross receipts generated from the LA Art show within 30 days of the event’s conclusion (the “Deferred Payments”). In addition, at all times, LAAS was and still is obligated to provide reasonable access to LAAS’s books and accounting records so that FADA can verify the Deferred Payments accurately reflect 3% of the total gross receipts.” (Compl. ¶ 9.) LAAS breached these and other obligations and never intended to fulfill them. Finally, Defendant Palm Beach Jewelry & Antique Show, Inc. (“Palm”) is an alter ego of LAAS.

Palm seeks to quash service of summons as it contends there is no general or specific jurisdiction over it in this forum. Palm argues it is a Florida corporation with no business link to California. It also argues there is no evidence of alter ego liability.

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1).) “Although the defendant is the moving party, the plaintiff must carry the initial burden of demonstrating facts by a preponderance of evidence justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in California.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)

By statute, the courts of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution. (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10.) Constitutional due process requires that a nonresident defendant have “certain minimum contacts” with a forum such that the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) The extent of the defendant’s contacts with the forum determines whether the Court’s jurisdiction is general or specific. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, 754-755.) Courts may assert general jurisdiction where the foreign defendant’s contacts with the forum “ ‘are so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.’ ” (Id. at p. 754.)

To determine whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction is proper in a given case, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.) “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.) It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct giving rise to the pleaded causes of action amounts to constitutionally cognizable “minimum contacts.” (Id. at p. 1313.)

Plaintiff argues that there is specific jurisdiction over Palm because “Palm Beach continually advertises the LA Art Show events, has paid FADA for deferred payments owed under the Purchase Agreement, continued to discuss the obligations owed under the Purchase Agreement with FADA, and holds out both the LA Art Shows and the Palm Beach Shows as its Palm Beach Show Group events.” (Opposition at p. 11.) Plaintiff also argues that the Purchase Agreement binds LAAS’s affiliates, including Palm, and that Palm has obligations under the Purchase Agreement.

Previously, the Court tentatively ruled as follows,

The Purchase Agreement binds the affiliates[1] of LAAS. Further, Palm appears to have an obligation under the Purchase Agreement. (See Purchase Agreement § 7(d).) Palm also appears to advertise the LA Art Show on its website. (Champ Decl. ¶ 3.) Thus, the Court concludes (1) Palm has availed itself of this forum’s benefits via advertisement of the LA Art Show and that (2) this contact relates to the Purchase Agreement. Therefore, specific jurisdiction exists.

Additionally, the Purchase Agreement contains a forum-selection clause allowing for litigation in California. (Purchase Agreement § 10(l).)[2]

In sum, the Motion to Quash is denied. The Court notes a timely reply was not filed.

At the Motion hearing, it was confirmed that Palm had filed a timely reply. The Court continued the Motion and allowed supplemental briefing.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ additional briefing and will again deny the Motion. This is because it could be said Palm directed LAAS’s activities in this forum relating to deferred payments under the Purchase Agreement such that there is specific jurisdiction. (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1170.) Indeed, there is evidence that (1) Scott Diament—who is the President of Palm—negotiated the Purchase Agreement before LAAS existed (Sam Diament Decl. ¶¶ 2-3); (2) Palm was used as a “placeholder” in the Purchase Agreement until LAAS was actually formed (Sam Diament Decl. ¶ 7); (3) Scott Diament’s father, Sam Diament, discussed payments under the Purchase Agreement using an email associated with “Palm Beach Show Group” (Glassman Decl. ¶ 10)[3]; (4) even if “Palm Beach Show Group” is not a dba for Palm and is instead an umbrella brand as Palm contends, “Palm Beach Show Group” still has some affiliation with Palm to the extent it promotes Palm’s events, among those of other entities (Sam Diament Decl. ¶ 4); (5) Palm tendered a check for a deferred payment required under the Purchase Agreement (Scott Diament Decl. ¶ 15); and (6) Scott Diament and Robert Samuels are the only officers or directors of both LAAS and Palm (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Exhibits F, H.)

While Scott Diament claims Palm’s payment to Plaintiff was an accounting error, there is no evidence that the payment was revoked or that there was anything communicated about the impropriety of the payment.

As mentioned, Palm contends “Palm Beach Show Group” is merely an umbrella brand which promotes events by both LAAS and Palm, among others, and that “any response [from a Palm Beach Show Group email] is a response from an officer or person of authority from the relevant entity given the content of the communications.” (Scott Diament Decl. ¶ 17.) However, this does not seem totally accurate. Indeed, Palm has indicated that Scott Diament is CEO/President of Palm Beach Show Group. (RJN, Exhibit I.)[4] One cannot be the CEO of a brand.

Because there is specific jurisdiction, the Motion is denied.


[1] The Purchase Agreement provides, “ ‘Affiliate’ has the meaning set forth in Rule 12b-2 of the regulations promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act.”

[2] “California favors contractual forum selection clauses so long as they are entered into freely and voluntarily, and their enforcement would not be unreasonable.” (Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 1, 11.)

[3] The objections are overruled as to the following portion of paragraph 10 of the declaration of Glassman: “FADA billing personnel (fadabilling@gmail.com) and Sam Diament, from his Palm Beach email address, sam@palmbeachshow.com exchanged numerous communications regarding FADA’s request to verify that the payments FADA received were accurate.”

[4] Plaintiff’s RJN is granted as to Exhibits A-K.

Case Number: 20STCV22346    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: August 27, 2020

Case Name: Fine Art Dealers Association v. LA Art Show, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV22346

Matter: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Defendant Palm Beach Jewelry & Antique Show, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Fine Art Dealers Association


Tentative Ruling:      The Motion to Quash is denied.


On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) fraudulent concealment, and (4) an accounting.  The allegations of the Complaint are as follows.  In June 2012, Plaintiff Fine Art Dealers Association (“FADA”) agreed to sell its rights to the LA Art Show to Defendant LA Art Show, Inc. (“LAAS”) pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement (“Purchase Agreement”).  Among other benefits under the Purchase Agreement, FADA was to receive “three percent (3%) of all gross receipts generated from the LA Art show within 30 days of the event’s conclusion (the “Deferred Payments”). In addition, at all times, LAAS was and still is obligated to provide reasonable access to LAAS’s books and accounting records so that FADA can verify the Deferred Payments accurately reflect 3% of the total gross receipts.”  (Compl. ¶ 9.)  LAAS breached these and other obligations and never intended to fulfill them.  Finally, Defendant Palm Beach Jewelry & Antique Show, Inc. (“Palm”) is an alter ego of LAAS.

Palm seeks to quash service of summons as it contends there is no general or specific jurisdiction over it in this forum.  Palm argues it is a Florida corporation with no business link to California.  It also argues there is no evidence of alter ego liability.

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground the Court lacks personal jurisdiction.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1).)  “Although the defendant is the moving party, the plaintiff must carry the initial burden of demonstrating facts by a preponderance of evidence justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in California.”  (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)

By statute, the courts of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10.)  Constitutional due process requires that a nonresident defendant have “certain minimum contacts” with a forum such that the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.  (International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)  The extent of the defendant’s contacts with the forum determines whether the Court’s jurisdiction is general or specific.  (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, 754-755.)  Courts may assert general jurisdiction where the foreign defendant’s contacts with the forum “ ‘are so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.’ ”  (Id. at p. 754.) 

To determine whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction is proper in a given case, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.  (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)  “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.”  (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.)  It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct giving rise to the pleaded causes of action amounts to constitutionally cognizable “minimum contacts.”  (Id. at p. 1313.)

Plaintiff argues that there is specific jurisdiction over Palm because “Palm Beach continually advertises the LA Art Show events, has paid FADA for deferred payments owed under the Purchase Agreement, continued to discuss the obligations owed under the Purchase Agreement with FADA, and holds out both the LA Art Shows and the Palm Beach Shows as its Palm Beach Show Group events.”  (Opposition at p. 11.) 

The Purchase Agreement binds the affiliates[1] of LAAS.  Further, Palm appears to have an obligation under the Purchase Agreement.  (See Purchase Agreement § 7(d).)  Palm also appears to advertise the LA Art Show on its website.  (Champ Decl. ¶ 3.)  Thus, the Court concludes (1) Palm has availed itself of this forum’s benefits via advertisement of the LA Art Show and that (2) this contact relates to the Purchase Agreement.  Therefore, specific jurisdiction exists.

Additionally, the Purchase Agreement contains a forum-selection clause allowing for litigation in California.  (Purchase Agreement § 10(l).)[2]

In sum, the Motion to Quash is denied.  The Court notes a timely reply was not filed.


[1] The Purchase Agreement provides, “ ‘Affiliate’ has the meaning set forth in Rule 12b-2 of the regulations promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act.”

[2] “California favors contractual forum selection clauses so long as they are entered into freely and voluntarily, and their enforcement would not be unreasonable.”  (Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 1, 11.) 

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GOULD JACOB