Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/26/2019 at 03:49:55 (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

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • 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

LOEB STEVEN SCOTT

Defendant Attorney

DIGIUSEPPE STEPHEN A.

 

Court Documents

Status Report

8/14/2019: Status Report

Status Report

8/22/2019: Status Report

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)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/22/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Status Report

3/6/2019: Status Report

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/2/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: First Amended Complaint

9/18/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: First Amended Complaint

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-10-19 00:00:00

10/19/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-10-19 00:00:00

Other - - CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

1/3/2018: Other - - CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Other - - CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

1/12/2018: Other - - CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-02-26 00:00:00

2/26/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-02-26 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

2/28/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

5/7/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request

5/17/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

6/1/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

6/18/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil -

7/12/2018: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil -

Substitution of Attorney

3/25/2019: Substitution of Attorney

30 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/26/2020
  • Hearing02/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department F49 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Arbitration Status) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Arbitration Status)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Arbitration Status) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2019
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by DIANA VIGIL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Arbitration Status) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Arbitration Status)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by DIANA VIGIL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 09/18/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2017
  • DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by LONGACRE ESTATES, LP (Plaintiff)

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC057766    Hearing Date: October 01, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 8

Date: 10-1-20

Case #PC057766

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer LOEB, STEVEN S