This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/11/2021 at 19:13:34 (UTC).

INES FERREIRA, ET AL. VS CAROLINE LEE, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/21/2020 INES FERREIRA filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against CAROLINE LEE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0450

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

STUDIO CITY CARE LLC

FERREIRA INES

Defendants

SBS TRUST DEED NETWORK

COMET HYESUNG LLC

CHANG EUI

THE NU LIFE INC

LEE CAROLINE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

FISHER ALEXANDER

FISHER ALEXANDER JORDAN

Defendant Attorney

KARPELES JACK HOWARD

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/19/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case Management Statement

3/19/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/29/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JACK H. KARPELES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

2/16/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JACK H. KARPELES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

10/15/2020: Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/8/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/8/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/8/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/8/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION OF TRUSTEE'S NON-MONETARY STATUS

8/20/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF TRUSTEE'S NON-MONETARY STATUS

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9/8/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORD...)

7/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORD...)

Notice of Lis Pendens

7/29/2020: Notice of Lis Pendens

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/7/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF INES FERREIRA IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

7/24/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF INES FERREIRA IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

7/21/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

7/21/2020: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

7/21/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

71 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/27/2021
  • Hearing09/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Continued Case Management Conference); Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Continued Case Management Conference); Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Answers of Caroline Lee, Comet Hyesung LLC & the Nu Life Inc. Filed by Pltff Ines Ferreira, et. al.) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
74 More Docket Entries
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Ines Ferreira In Support of Application); Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketOrder (Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction); Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Alexander J. Fisher Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 & 3.1204); Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities (in Support of Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction); Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ines Ferreira (Plaintiff); Studio City Care, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20BBCV00450    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: A

Motion to Strike Answers

Calendar:

16

Case No.:

20BBCV00450

Hearing Date:

February 26, 2021

Action Filed:

July 21, 2020

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Plaintiffs Ines Ferreira; Studio City Care, LLC

RP:

Defendants Caroline Lee; Comet Hyesung, LLC; The Nu-Life Inc.; Eui Chang; SBS Trust Deed Network

ALLEGATIONS:

Ines Ferreira ("Ferreira") and Studio City Care, LLC ("City Care") (and together, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Caroline Lee ("Lee"), Comet Hyesung, LLC ("Comet"), The Nu Life Inc. ("Nu"), Eui Chang ("Chang"), and SBS Trust Deed Network ("SBS") (collectively, "Defendants") regarding an alleged breach of contract concerning a property transaction between the parties for the real property located at 3034 Dona Nenita Pl., Studio City, CA 91604 ("Property").

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on July 2, 2020 alleging seven (7) causes of action sounding in: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Intentional Trespass/TRO; (3) Accounting; (4) Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure in Violation of Civil Codes §§ 2943(e)(4) & 2923.5; (5) Bad Faith/Predatory Lending; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (7) Breach of Contract and Implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the instant motion filed by Plaintiffs on January 07, 2021; the opposition filed by Defendants on February 16, 2021; and the notice of non-opposition filed by Plaintiffs also on February 16, 2021.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move to strike the joint Answer filed by Defendants.

DISCUSSION:

Untimely Opposition – Pursuant to CCP § 1005(b), all opposition papers are to be filed at least nine court days before the hearing date, excluding holidays. As the Court was closed on February 15 for President's Day, opposition papers were due on February 12, 2021 for matters set for the instant hearing on February 26, 2021. The opposition to the instant matter was untimely filed on February 16, 2021.

As Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition on the same day and has not yet filed reply papers, the Court will either proceed to the merits of the case or continue the instant motion for further briefing.

Standard of Review – Motion to Strike Answer – “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. (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.) “The entry of a default terminates a defendant's rights to take any further affirmative steps in the¿litigation until either its default is set aside or a default judgment is entered. [Citations] ‘A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right¿of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings or move for a new trial or demand notice of subsequent proceedings.’ [Citation]” (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc.¿(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386.)

Merits – Plaintiffs argue that the Court entered defaults against Defendants on October 13, 2020, and, notwithstanding these defaults, Defendants filed a joint answer on October 21, 2021. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not withdrawn the October 21 joint answer or made a motion to set aside the defaults.

In opposition, Defendants do not directly refute Plaintiffs' arguments but argue that Plaintiffs failed to properly serve the summons and complaint and refused to meet and confer. These arguments are inappropriate on opposition to the instant motion, and the Court will consider the issue to be conceded by Defendants. As Defendants have not moved to set aside the defaults, the Court will grant the instant motion.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiffs Ines Ferreira and Studio City Care's Motion to Strike Answer came on regularly for hearing on February 26, 2021 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWERS IS GRANTED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: 20BBCV00450    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

  1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

  2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

  3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

  4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

  5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

  6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

  7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

  8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

Ferreira v Lee

Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

Calendar:

Case No.:

20BBCV00450

Hearing Date:

September 01, 2020

Action Filed:

July 21, 2020

Trial Date:

Not Set

Preliminary Injunction

MP:

Plaintiffs Ines Ferreira; Studio City Care, LLC

RP:

Defendants Caroline Lee; Comet Hyesung, LLC; The Nu-Life Inc.; Eui Chang; SBS Trust Deed Network

ALLEGATIONS:

Ines Ferreira ("Ferreira") and Studio City Care, LLC ("City Care") (and together, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Caroline Lee ("Lee"), Comet Hyesung, LLC ("Comet"), The Nu Life Inc. ("Nu"), Eui Chang ("Chang"), and SBS Trust Deed Network ("SBS") (collectively, "Defendants") regarding an alleged breach of contract concerning a property transaction between the parties for the real property located at 3034 Dona Nenita Pl., Studio City, CA 91604 ("Property").

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on July 2, 2020 alleging seven (7) causes of action sounding in: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Intentional Trespass/TRO; (3) Accounting; (4) Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure in Violation of Civil Codes §§ 2943(e)(4) & 2923.5; (5) Bad Faith/Predatory Lending; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (7) Breach of Contract and Implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiffs filed the ex parte application for temporary restraining order on July 24, 2020, and Defendants filed an opposition on July 27, 2020.

On July 28, 2020, the Department B court under the Honorable Judge John J. Kralik granted the ex parte application, ordered counsel for Plaintiffs to post bond in the amount of $1,500, and ordered opposition filed by August 7, 2020 and a reply by August 11, 2020.

Defendant's ex parte application for continuance of the preliminary injunction hearing date was filed on August 7, 2020.

On August 14, 2020, the Court granted the ex parte application and continued the instant matters to September 01, 2020. The moving party was ordered to give notice.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction restraining and SBS, Comet, and Lee from conducting a Trustee's Sale set for August 5, 2020 and rescheduling any further or continued Trustee Sale of the Property.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Preliminary Judgment

Standard of Review

A decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 277, 286.) Code of Civ. Proc. § 526 provides in part:

(a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases:

(1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.

(2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action.

(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

(4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.

(5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief.

(6) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

(7) Where the obligation arises from a trust.

An injunction may not be granted except upon a sufficient factual showing, by someone having knowledge, made under oath or by declaration under penalty of perjury. (Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 350, 356.)

A party requesting an injunction must show two things: (1) the likelihood of its prevailing on the merits of the dispute; and (2) the harm it will suffer without an injunction outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer if the injunction is issued. (Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 618, 625.) The moving party must prevail on both factors to obtain an injunction. (Sahlolbei v. Providence Healthcare, Inc. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1145.)

Nevertheless, a failure to show that the balance of the harms favors granting relief is not necessarily fatal to the request for a preliminary injunction. If the party seeking the injunction can make a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court has the discretion to issue the injunction notwithstanding that party’s inability to show that the balance of harms tips in its favor. (Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 336, 339.)

However, a court may not issue an injunction if it finds the moving party has no chance of succeeding on the merits, because then an injunction only postpones an inevitable loss on the merits. (14859 Moorpark Homeowners Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1396, 1408.) But when the court does not know who is likely to prevail, the court may take into account the competing harms from issuing the injunction or denying one. (Dodge, Warren Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1414, 1420.)

Merits

Standing – Defendants argue Ferreira does not have standing in the instant case, as City Care owns the Property, citing People v. Superior Court (Ahn) (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 486, 495-496 in support of Ferreira's lack of standing. (Decl. Ferreira, ¶ 9, 29.)

"As a general principle, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury of sufficient magnitude reasonably to assure that all of the relevant facts and issues will be adequately presented to the adjudicator. [Citations.] To have standing, a party must be beneficially interested in the controversy; that is, he or she must have “some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” [Citation.] The party must be able to demonstrate that he or she has some such beneficial interest that is concrete and actual, and not conjectural or hypothetical.’ [Citation.]" (People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 486, 496) (quoting Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 599.)

On review of the FAC, the Court finds that Ferreira sufficiently showed she is the managing member of City Care (Decl. Ferreira, ¶ 1) and was solicited for and involved in all aspects of the transaction underlying the instant suit (Decl. Ferreira, ¶ 5-9.) The Court thus finds that Ferreira has sufficiently demonstrated her concrete and actual beneficial interest in the instant suit, and that standing is proper.

Good Cause – Plaintiffs argue good cause exists for a preliminary injunction because it demonstrates that it risks suffering irreparable injury in losing the Property, which is "unique" as real property. On review of the moving papers, the Court finds good cause exists pursuant to CCP § 526(a).

Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Plaintiffs argue it is likely to succeed because (1) Defendants failed to provide a demand pursuant to Civil Code § 2943 21 days after Plaintiffs made their own demand (Decl. Ferreira, Exh. H); (2) when Defendants provided its demand after five weeks, it purportedly included interest at a rate of 18% (Decl. Fisher, Exh. P), a rate Plaintiffs contend is usurious and not comporting with the terms of the agreement between the parties ("Note"), as well as another subsequent revised demand after four additional months again purportedly including interest rate above Note terms (Decl. Fisher, Exh. H); (3) Defendants provided a further revised note in Date that purportedly included interest it was not entitled to based on its alleged underlying breaches. (Decl. Fisher, Exh. T.); (4) Plaintiffs contend preliminary injunctions are commonly and readily granted for disputes involving injunctive relief and declaratory relief, as in the instant case, citing More vs. Calkins (1890) 85 C 177; Baypoint Mortgage Corp. vs. Crest Premium Real Estate Inv. Retirement Trust (1985); and Producers Holding Co. vs. Hill, (1927)201 C 204; Stockton vs. Newman (1957) 148 CA 2d 558 in support; and (5) Defendants allegedly violated the provisions of Civil Code § 2923.5. (Decl. Ferreira, ¶ 30; Exh. G.) Plaintiffs further argue the proper remedy for a violation of Civil Code § 2923.5 is the postponement of a trustee sale, citing Mehta vs. Wells Fargo Bank (SD Cal 2010) 737 F. Supp 2d 1185 and Skov vs. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n (2012) 207 CA 4th 690.

Defendants argue Plaintiffs do not dispute the notice of default and sale were proper. Defendants also argue the dispute between the parties was over 0.5% of the transaction amount, and that Plaintiffs refused arbitration for that 0.5%, but fail to support this contention with competent evidence.

In any moving paper purporting to provide evidence, such evidence must be submitted by way of declaration, submitted under penalty of perjury, and documents must be authenticated. (See, e.g., Code of Civ. Proc. §2015.5; Evid. Code §1400 et seq.)

Absent competent evidence, the Court cannot consider the putative evidence or documents presented, as the putative evidence lacks adequate foundation to serve as competent evidence in support of, or in opposition to, a motion. Defendants incorporate the purported email in support of this matter within the motion itself without a corresponding declaration or submission under penalty of perjury. The Court will thus disregard the argument.

Civil Code § 2943 states in relevant parts:

"(5) “Payoff demand statement” means a written statement, prepared in response to a written demand made by an entitled person or authorized agent, setting forth the amounts required as of the date of preparation by the beneficiary, to fully satisfy all obligations secured by the loan that is the subject of the payoff demand statement. The written statement shall include information reasonably necessary to calculate the payoff amount on a per diem basis for the period of time, not to exceed 30 days, during which the per diem amount is not changed by the terms of the note.

(b)(1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall, within 21 days of the receipt of a written demand by an entitled person or his or her authorized agent, prepare and deliver to the person demanding it a true, correct, and complete copy of the note or other evidence of indebtedness with any modification thereto, and a beneficiary statement. . . .

(4) If a beneficiary for a period of 21 days after receipt of the written demand willfully fails to prepare and deliver the statement, he or she is liable to the entitled person for all damages which he or she may sustain by reason of the refusal and, whether or not actual damages are sustained, he or she shall forfeit to the entitled person the sum of three hundred dollars ($300). Each failure to prepare and deliver the statement, occurring at a time when, pursuant to this section, the beneficiary is required to prepare and deliver the statement, creates a separate cause of action. . . ."

The Court finds that Defendants' sole argument, that Plaintiffs did not dispute that the notice of default and sale were proper, does not respond to any of Plaintiffs' proffered arguments, which allege, among other allegations, that Defendants improperly breached the Note and acted in bad faith in filing the non-judicial notice of default. Further, Plaintiffs have disputed the propriety of the notice of default and sale. (Mot., 7: 10:15-16.) The Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown Defendants' breach of Civil Code § 2943. In light of the lack of opposition to Plaintiffs' remaining arguments, the Court finds Plaintiffs have shown the likelihood of success on the merits.

Weighing of Equities – Plaintiffs argues the harm to Defendants in having the trustee sale halted is nominal compared to the harm to Plaintiff in losing a residential property. Defendants do not directly address the weighing of equities factor.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that it will suffer irreparable harm in the loss of its real property absent the grant of preliminary injunction. On review of the moving papers, and in again in light of the lack of opposition to Plaintiffs' arguments, the Court thus finds the harm suffered by Plaintiffs outweighs the harm suffered by Defendants concerning the grant of preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion for preliminary injunction.

Bond Requirement – Plaintiffs argue that in light of Defendants' alleged breach of procedures for non-judicial foreclosure and bad-faith actions, Defendants are only nominally harmed by a preliminary injunction the Court will thus set a nominal sum as bond or waive it entirely pursuant to CCP § 995.240. Defendants do not address the bond requirement.

"The court may, in its discretion, waive a provision for a bond in an action or proceeding and make such orders as may be appropriate as if the bond were given, if the court determines that the principal is unable to give the bond because the principal is indigent and is unable to obtain sufficient sureties, whether personal or admitted surety insurers. In exercising its discretion the court shall take into consideration all factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to the character of the action or proceeding, the nature of the beneficiary, whether public or private, and the potential harm to the beneficiary if the provision for the bond is waived." (Code Civ. Proc., § 995.240.)

The Court will set a nominal sum as bond requirement in light of Defendants' lack of opposition to Plaintiffs' request.

---

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants' Ex Parte Application and Plaintiffs Ines Ferreira and Studio City Care's Motion for Preliminary Restraining Order came on regularly for hearing on September 01, 2020 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS GRANTED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: 20BBCV00450    Hearing Date: August 14, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use LACourtConnect, the court’s remote appearance technology (audio or video)

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Ferreira v Lee

Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Ex Parte Application

Calendar:

12

Case No.:

20BBCV00450

Hearing Date:

August 14, 2020

Action Filed:

July 21, 2020

Trial Date:

Not Set

Ex Parte Application

MP:

Defendants Caroline Lee; Comet Hyesung, LLC; The Nu-Life Inc.; Eui Chang; SBS Trust Deed Network

RP:

N/A

Preliminary Injunction

MP:

Plaintiffs Ines Ferreira; Studio City Care, LLC

RP:

Defendants Caroline Lee; Comet Hyesung, LLC; The Nu-Life Inc.; Eui Chang; SBS Trust Deed Network

ALLEGATIONS:

Ines Ferreira ("Ferreira") and Studio City Care, LLC ("City Care") (and together, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Caroline Lee ("Lee"), Comet Hyesung, LLC ("Comet"), The Nu Life Inc. ("Nu"), Eui Chang ("Chang"), and SBS Trust Deed Network ("SBS") (collectively, "Defendants") regarding an alleged breach of contract concerning a property transaction between the parties for the real property located at 3034 Dona Nenita Pl., Studio City, CA 91604 ("Property").

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on July 2, 2020 alleging seven (7) causes of action sounding in: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Intentional Trespass/TRO; (3) Accounting; (4) Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure in Violation of Civil Codes §§ 2943(e)(4) & 2923.5; (5) Bad Faith/Predatory Lending; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (7) Breach of Contract and Implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiffs filed the ex parte application for temporary restraining order on July 24, 2020, and Defendants filed an opposition on July 27, 2020.

On July 28, 2020, the Department B court under the Honorable Judge John J. Kralik granted the ex parte application, ordered counsel for Plaintiffs to post bond in the amount of $1,500, and ordered opposition filed by August 7, 2020 and a reply by August 11, 2020.

Defendant's ex parte application for continuance of the preliminary injunction hearing date was filed on August 7, 2020. No opposition or reply was received.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant requests a continuance of the preliminary injunction hearing date pursuant to CCP § 527(b)(2).

Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction restraining and SBS, Comet, and Lee from conducting a Trustee's Sale set for August 5, 2020 and rescheduling any further or continued Trustee Sale of the Property.

DISCUSSION:

Ex Parte Application

Standard of Review

"A request for ex parte relief must be in writing and must include all of the following:

(1)  An application containing the case caption and stating the relief requested;

(2)  A declaration in support of the application making the factual showing required under rule 3.1202(c);

(3)  A declaration based on personal knowledge of the notice given under rule 3.1204;

(4)  A memorandum; and

(5)  A proposed order." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1201.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c), "An applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte."

"The opposing party [to the TRO] is entitled to one continuance for a reasonable period of not less than 15 days or any shorter period requested by the opposing party, to enable the opposing party to meet the application for a preliminary injunction. If the opposing party obtains a continuance under this paragraph, the temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the date of the continued hearing." (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (d)(1).)

Procedural Errors

The Court has not received a proposed order required in an ex parte application pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1201. This error is not fatal to the application, and the Court will nevertheless analyze the merits.

Merits

On review of the Declaration of Jack Karpeles, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to a continuance pursuant to CCP § 527(d)(1). Accordingly, the Court will grant the ex parte application.

Motion for Preliminary Judgment

The instant motion is continued

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants' Ex Parte Application and Plaintiffs Ines Ferreira and Studio City Care's Motion for Preliminary Restraining Order came on regularly for hearing on August 14, 2020 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE EX PARTE APPLICATION IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS CONTINUED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where STUDIO CITY CARE LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where THE NU LIFE INC is a litigant

Latest cases where S.B.S. TRUST DEED NETWORK is a litigant