This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/16/2021 at 05:52:08 (UTC).

KYLE BAYES, ET AL. VS ARNOLD BERNSTEIN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/06/2020 KYLE BAYES filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ARNOLD BERNSTEIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0891

  • Filing Date:

    07/06/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

BAYES KYLE

PERMAN NESSA

BAYES JANE

MARLENE J MATLOW AS TRUSTEE OF THE SURVIVOR'S TRUST CREATED UNDER THE MATLOW TRUST

LILLARD PATRICIA

LILLARD W. HUSTON III

DONATONI JOHN

RUSCHA ED

DONATONI RIVON

PERMAN GERALD

RUSCHA DANNA

Defendants

BERNSTEIN ELINOR

BERNSTEIN ARNOLD

POINT DUME TENNIS ASSOCIATION A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

JOHN STOCKWELL

STOCKWELL CO-TRUSTEE OF STOCKWELL HENDERSON TRUST JOHN

HENDERSON HELENE

Cross Defendants and Defendants

POINT DUME TENNIS ASSOCIATION A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

STOCKWELL JOHN - CO-TRUSTEE OF STOCKWELL HENDERSON TRUST

STOCKWELL CO-TRUSTEE OF STOCKWELL HENDERSON TRUST JOHN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LALLAS TOM

LEVINE NORMAN H

Defendant Attorney

BADKAR DINESH RAVINDRA

Cross Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

ROTH BRYAN DANIEL

BAUTE MARK DOUGLAS

 

Court Documents

Order - ORDER ORDER APPOINTING COURT-APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

9/3/2021: Order - ORDER ORDER APPOINTING COURT-APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

9/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

8/27/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

Reply - REPLY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/27/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

8/16/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Cross-Complaint

7/26/2021: Cross-Complaint

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION AMONG PLAINTIFFS AND POINT DUME TENNIS ASSOCIATION RE COMPLAINT FOR PARTITION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

7/19/2021: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION AMONG PLAINTIFFS AND POINT DUME TENNIS ASSOCIATION RE COMPLAINT FOR PARTITION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

7/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

7/13/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Case Management Statement

6/28/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice of Appearance

6/17/2021: Notice of Appearance

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

6/3/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

5/28/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Case Management Statement

3/3/2021: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

3/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Association of Attorney

4/23/2021: Association of Attorney

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

12/29/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

7/6/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

42 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/29/2021
  • Hearing10/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • Hearing10/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • Hearing10/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Evidentiary Hearing 402 EC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketOrder (Order Appointing Court-Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore); Filed by Jane Bayes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice (in Support of Demurrer); Filed by Arnold Bernstein (Defendant); Elinor Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike (to Cross-Complaint); Filed by Arnold Bernstein (Defendant); Elinor Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketReply (Reply In Support of Demurrer to Cross-Complaint); Filed by Kyle Bayes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
47 More Docket Entries
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Arnold Bernstein (Defendant); Elinor Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2020
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Kyle Bayes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Arnold Bernstein (Defendant); Elinor Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Kyle Bayes (Plaintiff); Jane Bayes (Plaintiff); John Donatoni (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Kyle Bayes (Plaintiff); Jane Bayes (Plaintiff); John Donatoni (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Kyle Bayes (Plaintiff); Jane Bayes (Plaintiff); John Donatoni (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Kyle Bayes (Plaintiff); Jane Bayes (Plaintiff); John Donatoni (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kyle Bayes (Plaintiff); Jane Bayes (Plaintiff); John Donatoni (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20SMCV00891 Hearing Date: September 3, 2021 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

\r\n\r\n

Bayes v. Bernstein\r\net al., Case No. 20SMCV00891

\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date September\r\n3, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Cross-Defendant Point\r\nDume Tennis Association (PDTA) Demurrer to Cross-Complaint

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Cross-complainants\r\nArnold and Elinor Bernstein, and cross-defendants Kyle Bayes, Jane Bayes, John\r\nDonatoni, Rivon Donatoni, Marlene J.\r\nMatlow, Ed Ruscha, Danna Ruscha, Patricia Lillard, W. Huston Lillard III,\r\nGerald Perman and Nessa Perman, members of the Point Dume Tennis Association\r\n(PDTA), own property as tenants in common. The Bernsteins allege PDTA’s bylaws\r\ngive members a right of first refusal or purchase option if another member\r\ndecides to sell their interest or if the PDTA decides to sell the entire\r\nproperty. The Bernsteins allege the individual cross-defendants refused to\r\nacknowledge the purchase option, deceived them as to the content of an\r\namendment to the bylaws and induced a sale of the property to cross-defendant\r\nStockwell at a price below market value.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Cross-defendant\r\nPDTA demurs on the grounds that the PDTA Bylaws attached to the cross-complaint\r\ndo not contain a right of first refusal or purchase option if PDTA’s members\r\nagree to sell the property and the fraud causes of action are insufficiently\r\nalleged.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Interpretation of\r\nBylaws

\r\n\r\n

Although facts\r\nalleged in a pleading are deemed true on demurrer, facts in attached exhibits\r\nthat contradict allegations in the pleading are given precedence. Brakke v.\r\nEconomic Concepts, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 761, 767-768. Extrinsic\r\nevidence may be considered to interpret a latent ambiguity in a contract or to\r\ndetermine whether a contract that appears unambiguous on its face contains a\r\nlatent ambiguity. Winet v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PDTA argues the bylaws\r\nonly include a right of first refusal as to sale of membership shares in the\r\nPDTA, and the right does not apply to a sale of the property itself. Cross-complaint\r\nExh. 1. The cross-complaint includes additional attached exhibits indicating\r\nthat “membership,” as used within the bylaws, is intended to mean the members’\r\nownership interests in the property. Opp. Exh. 13-14. This is sufficient to\r\nshow a latent ambiguity as to the meaning of PDTA membership. The meaning of\r\nthe first refusal/option provision is ambiguous, a question of fact not\r\nproperly decided on demurrer. OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Fraud Claims

\r\n\r\n

PDTA argues the\r\ncauses of action for fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment fail because Arnold\r\nBernstein admits to having signed the amendment to the bylaws. Therefore,\r\ncross-defendant argues, he cannot allege reasonable reliance on\r\ncross-defendants’ representations regarding the content of the amendment. The\r\ncross-complaint alleges intentional misrepresentations made in 2016, three\r\ndecades after the amendment was signed. Cross-complaint at ¶68. The\r\ncross-complaint alleges “any copy [of the amendment cross-complainants] may\r\nhave had was lost and/or destroyed over the ensuing decades, and any specific\r\nmemory of it had faded.” Cross complaint at ¶49. Therefore, the cross-complaint\r\nis based on allegations that, though cross-complainants were once aware of the\r\namendment’s contents, they no longer remember them and could not confirm them\r\nby reference to the amendment. Therefore, the cross-complaint alleges, the\r\nBernsteins reasonably relied on cross-defendant’s false representations in 2016\r\nregarding the amendment’s contents. Cross-complainants’ admission that they\r\nsigned the amendment is strong evidence against their allegations but is not sufficient\r\nto sustain the demurrer. OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DUE TO THE ONGOING\r\nCOVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT\r\nOFFICE TEAMS.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROTH BRYAN DANIEL