This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/11/2021 at 02:22:06 (UTC).

LONGACRE ESTATES LP VS. DIANA VIGIL

Case Summary

On 05/22/2017 LONGACRE ESTATES LP filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DIANA VIGIL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN P. PFAHLER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7766

  • Filing Date:

    05/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN P. PFAHLER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LONGACRE ESTATES LP

Defendant

VIGIL DIANA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

APPELL SHAPIRO LLP

FELTON JAMES R.

LOEB STEVEN SCOTT

Defendant Attorney

DIGIUSEPPE STEPHEN A.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ARBITRATION STATUS)

9/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ARBITRATION STATUS)

Status Report

8/22/2019: Status Report

Status Report

8/14/2019: Status Report

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/22/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Status Report

3/6/2019: Status Report

Status Report

2/5/2020: Status Report

Status Report - PLAINTIFF'S STATUS REPORT RE ARBITRATION

2/5/2020: Status Report - PLAINTIFF'S STATUS REPORT RE ARBITRATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ARBITRATION STATUS)

2/26/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ARBITRATION STATUS)

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ARBITRATION

2/27/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ARBITRATION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF STEPHEN A. DIGIUSEPPE RE OSC

3/26/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF STEPHEN A. DIGIUSEPPE RE OSC

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/6/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

4/9/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Motion re: - PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN A. DIGIUSEPPE; EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF

6/8/2020: Motion re: - PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN A. DIGIUSEPPE; EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Substitution of Attorney

6/12/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Unknown - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS

6/19/2020: Unknown - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS]

6/19/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS]

Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD

6/24/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD)

10/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD)

72 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2022
  • Hearing06/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department F49 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Order to Show Cause Re: Arbitration Status

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/30/2021
  • Hearing12/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F49 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/07/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Arbitration Status) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/07/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Arbitration Status)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by DIANA VIGIL (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (-Amended); Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/23/2021
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by JAMES R. FELTON (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/23/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/23/2021
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by JAMES R. FELTON (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
99 More Docket Entries
  • 09/18/2017
  • DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/18/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/25/2017
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7766    Hearing Date: October 01, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 8

Date: 10-1-20

Case #****7766

CORRECT ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Diana Vigil

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Longacre Estates, LP

RELIEF REQUESTED

Petition to Correct Arbitration Award

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Defendant Diana Vigil owns certain real property located at 11582 North Longacre Ave, Granada Hills. On February 23, 2015, Defendant and Harvard Investment Group, LP executed a Vacant Land Purchase Agreement. Harvard Investment Group, LP subsequently assigned the agreement to Plaintiff Longacre Estates, LP.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant represented that the lot was approved by the City of Los Angeles for subdivision into five separate parcels suitable for the construction of five separate residences. Defendant would keep one of the lots for development of a home, while Plaintiff would have development rights for the remaining four lots. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant either misrepresented or failed to disclose the “true slope” of the property as a 2:1 gradient ration, when the property was in fact a 1:1 gradient ratio, and misrepresented the boundary lines of the property.

Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendant knowingly made said representations on the property line at the time she was involved in litigation with an adjoining property owner over a boundary line involving a carport building encroaching on the neighbor’s property. Following the discovery of the boundary dispute, and slope gradient omission/misrepresentation, Plaintiff was forced to obtain a new tract map and grading plans.

In April 2017, Defendant sought to terminate the agreement. Plaintiff still wished to proceed with the project after advancing through the entitlement and permit process with the City of Los Angeles. Said permits and entitlements were all received with varying expiration dates.

On May 22, 2017 and September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed its complaint and first amended complaint for breach of contract – specific performance, declaratory relief, breach of contract – damages, breach of duty to disclose, and breach of duty to be honest and truthful. The parties submitted the action to arbitration.

RULING: Granted.

In arbitration, on May 28, 2018, the parties stipulated to a bifurcation of incidental damages and attorney fees from the issues of liability/specific performance. On June 1, 2018, the arbitrator served an award for specific performance in favor of Longacre Estates, whereby Virgil was ordered to cooperate with the subdivision and development of the property and in the loan financing for the development, and pay off certain debt tied to the property.

On February 19, 2020, the arbitrator issued a Damages & Attorney Fees Hearing Interim Award, whereby the arbitrator specifically declined to consider the claim for declaratory relief after the specific performance arbitration award on grounds that said claims constituted a new claim not part of the original arbitration. The arbitrator however agreed to consider any “relevant evidence” in the decision on the second part of the bifurcated arbitration regarding damages and attorney fees. The arbitrator awarded Plaintiff Longacre Estates, LP $123,850.26 in incidental damages against Diana Vigil, and found the remaining purchase price balance at $237,124.74.

Defendant Vigil filed an “application to correct the interim arbitration award.” On March 25, 2020, the arbitrator denied the application in part on grounds that it is not proper for the arbitrator to consider whether the issued award exceeded the power of the arbitrator. On the same day, the arbitrator served a separate Award stating: $123,850.26 in damages in favor of Plaintiff Longacre Estates, LP against Defendant Vigil; total attorney fees of $140,886.47 to Plaintiff Longacre Estates, LP; and set the purchase price balance due at $237,124.74. The arbitrator denied both the motion to apply the award of attorney fees and costs against the purchase price, and the motion to correct the interim award to include $30,150 in arbitration costs.

Defendant now moves to correct the arbitration award on grounds that the incidental damages of $123,850.26 and subsequent setting of the remaining balance at $237,124.74 improperly exceeded the scope of arbitrated dispute in that the award disregarded the terms of the purchase agreement and addenda. Specifically, the $237,124.74 balance fails to reflect amounts owed on property tax and interest payment agreements.

The purchase agreement addenda provided for a $450,000 purchase price remaining balance due and payable 15 months after the opening of escrow. If buyer failed to pay the entire balance within the 15-month time frame, Buyer would become obligated to pay 10% per annum interest. The parties also agreed that Plaintiff would pay property taxes beginning on May 22, 2016 in the amount of $384/month, as well as costs for upkeep/gardening, and $2,200/month beginning in August 2016 until a total of $200,000 was paid.

Defendant seeks a court order modifying the arbitration agreement to allow for the deduction of the $123,850.26 in incidental damages from the purchase price, addition of the interest, property tax and upkeep payments, but otherwise not alter the terms of the “Vacant Land Purchase Agreement” and subsequent addenda. The proposed change would lead to an acknowledgment of payments of $456,000 and $83,025 to Defendant, thereby leaving a $360,975 balance due on the purchase price. The $123,850.26 incidental damages award would be deducted from this purchase price balance, thereby leaving a final purchase balance due of $237,124.74. Nevertheless, instead of the fixed sum of $237,124.74, as indicated in the arbitration award, the parties would update the final balance due reflecting any property tax and interest payments due to be calculated upon the close of escrow. It’s not clear from the motion whether any upkeep costs up to $200,000 are also possibly included. The acknowledgment of the $456,000 and $83,025 in payments lacks any reference of a credit for upkeep/maintenance.

A party may move to correct an arbitration award on grounds that “(b) The arbitrators exceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted; or (c) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1286.6.) The arbitrator acts within the scope of the arbitration clause, and an award will not be corrected if the agreement falls within the scope of the agreement, even in case of legal or factual error. Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 28; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 348.)

As referenced above, in the March 25, 2020 served Ruling on the challenge to the award, the arbitrator denied the application for correction in part on grounds that it is not proper for the arbitrator to consider whether the issued award exceeded the power of the arbitrator. The arbitrator only addressed arguments under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, and also found that the challenge pursuant to section 1286.6 was beyond the scope of the statute (e.g. “far beyond correcting a miscalculation or a matter of form or a clarification.”)

Defendant contends the changes will not alter the incidental damages award and instead only incorporates the terms in the agreement specifically agreed upon by the parties. Plaintiff submits no opposition to the motion challenging the specific finding of the $237,124.74 fixed final closing price or enforceability of the addenda agreements.

The court therefore grants the petition to correct the award. The parties are ordered to calculate the final closing price as to reflect any and all payment obligations, including property tax, interest payments, and upkeep costs up to $200,000, if applicable, from the operative dates. The $539,025 in credits paid shall remain as stated in the award, but the $123,850.26 in incidental damages award shall be deducted from the final calculated balance. No other corrections or alterations to the terms of the agreement or arbitration award shall be addressed. Any disputes over the actual calculations on the final balance due upon completion of the sale may be addressed in a motion before the court, if necessary.

Defendant Vigil to provide notice.



b'

Case Number: ****7766 Hearing Date: August 2, 2021 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 7

Date: 8-2-21

Case #****7766

CONFIRM ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Longacre Estates, LP

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Diana Vigil

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Defendant Diana Vigil owns certain real property located at 11582 North Longacre Ave, Granada Hills. On February 23, 2015, Defendant and Harvard Investment Group, LP executed a Vacant Land Purchase Agreement. Harvard Investment Group, LP subsequently assigned the agreement to Plaintiff Longacre Estates, LP.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant represented that the lot was approved by the City of Los Angeles for subdivision into five separate parcels suitable for the construction of five separate residences. Defendant would keep one of the lots for development of a home, while Plaintiff would have development rights for the remaining four lots. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant either misrepresented or failed to disclose the “true slope” of the property as a 2:1 gradient ration, when the property was in fact a 1:1 gradient ratio, and misrepresented the boundary lines of the property.

Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendant knowingly made said representations on the property line at the time she was involved in litigation with an adjoining property owner over a boundary line involving a carport building encroaching on the neighbor’s property. Following the discovery of the boundary dispute, and slope gradient omission/misrepresentation, Plaintiff was forced to obtain a new tract map and grading plans.

In April 2017, Defendant sought to terminate the agreement. Plaintiff still wished to proceed with the project after advancing through the entitlement and permit process with the City of Los Angeles. Said permits and entitlements were all received with varying expiration dates.

On May 22, 2017 and September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed its complaint and first amended complaint for breach of contract – specific performance, declaratory relief, breach of contract – damages, breach of duty to disclose, and breach of duty to be honest and truthful. The parties submitted the action to arbitration.

On October 2, 2020, the court granted the unopposed motion of Defendant to correct the arbitration award.

RULING: Denied

Plaintiff Longacre Estates, LP moves to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to the terms stated in the May 28, 2018 arbitration award. Defendant in opposition challenges the order on grounds that the requested relief lacks acknowledgment of the October 2, 2020 order correcting the arbitration award. Defendant additionally contends the proposed award both omits material terms and adds new terms not part of the original order. Plaintiff in reply contends the opposition is untimely. Plaintiff additionally requests the court accept the revised judgment submitted with the reply now allegedly reflecting the “corrections” from the prior order.

The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) “[A]ll arbitration awards, including defense awards which have been satisfied, are subject to confirmation. (Pacific Law Group: USA v. Gibson (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 577, 580.) The court declines to preclude the opposition to the petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6 given the unopposed October 2, 2020 order altering the petition between the parties.

On May 28, 2018, the parties stipulated to a bifurcation of incidental damages and attorney fees from the issues of liability/specific performance. On May 28, 2018 and June 1, 2018, the arbitrator issued and served an award for specific performance in favor of Longacre Estates, whereby Virgil was ordered to cooperate with the subdivision and development of the property and cease any interference with the development of the property, including the contest of lot lines. Vigil was ordered to cooperate in the loan financing for the development, and pay off certain debt tied to the property. The arbitrator further specifically instructed Vigil to cooperate in obtaining the performance bond, and cooperate in the construction permitting or demolition process, and zoning requirements, as required/demanded by the City of Los Angeles. Longacre will deed two acres back to Vigil. [Declaration of James Felton, Ex. B: Arbitration Award, 62:1-64:9; Declaration of Shane DiGiuseppe, Ex. 4.]

On February 18, 2020, the arbitrator issued a Damages & Attorney Fees Hearing Interim Award. The arbitrator awarded Plaintiff Longacre Estates, LP $123,850.26 in incidental damages against Diana Vigil, and found the remaining purchase price balance at $237,124.74. [DiGiuseppe Decl., Ex. 5: Ruling, 43:26-37, 45:8-13.] The court deferred the decision on attorney fees. On March 19, 2020, the court awarded Longacre Estates, LP $140,886.47 in attorney fees and costs, and denied the request of Vigil to offset payment of the attorney fees and costs from the credit (equity) in the property. The award of $123,850.26 was affirmed, and the request for arbitration costs was also denied. [DiGiuseppe Decl., Ex. 6: Ruling, 45:15-29; Felton Decl, Ex. E.]

On February 29, 2020, Defendant Vigil filed an “application to correct the interim arbitration award.” On March 19, 2020, the arbitrator denied the application in part on grounds that it is not proper for the arbitrator to consider whether the issued award exceeded the power of the arbitrator. [Felton Decl., Ex. C: Ruling, 8:15-9:4.]

On October 2, 2020, the court ruled in part on the unopposed motion to correct the arbitration award:

“The parties are ordered to calculate the final closing price as to reflect any and all payment obligations, including property tax, interest payments, and upkeep costs up to $200,000, if applicable, from the operative dates. The $539,025 in credits paid shall remain as stated in the award, but the $123,850.26 in incidental damages award shall be deducted from the final calculated balance. No other corrections or alterations to the terms of the agreement or arbitration award shall be addressed.”

Plaintiff’s submitted a judgment that specifically parrots the language of the arbitration award, which included the following language:

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the Award of Robert Thomas, Ret., Inc. dated March 19, 2020 is confirmed in all respects and that judgment be entered in conformity therewith, to wit, that Petitioner is entitled to the sum of $123,850.26 and $140,886.47 for a total Award in the sum of $264,736.73 plus 10% interest accruing on that amount from July 26, 2017 through the date of the award. Post-Judgment interest on the total judgment amount shall thereafter accrue at the legal rate.

While the additional language properly reflects the award of the arbitrator for fees, costs and incidental damages, the original proposed order fails to reflect the unopposed court order challenging the application of the incidental damages award from the calculated final balance. Plaintiff subsequently submitted a new order, which incorporates in part the October 2, 2020 order language, with actual calculated amounts. Nevertheless, the proposed judgment also includes in the final paragraph: “If there are any disputes over the actual calculations on the final closing price due upon the close of escrow, the parties may address such issues in a motion before the Court.”

The court declines to consider the “corrected” proposed order submitted with the reply, as it deprives Defendant/Respondent the opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the court declines to continue inviting motions to correct the petition should the court enter judgment, without the review of defendant. The court therefore declines to enter a judgment for a specified sum not acknowledging the prior order, or the late submitted revised judgment with further conditional language. The court will not craft a solution for the parties, and directs the parties to review the language of the second proposed judgment in conformance with the October 2, 2020 order. The parties may submit a stipulated judgment. If a second motion to enter judgment gets filed because the parties remain unable to submit exact totals, the court will demand precisely enumerated calculations and question the parties’ mathematical basis of the discrepancy.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

'


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer LOEB, STEVEN S

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FELTON, JAMES R