Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/15/2021 at 18:00:15 (UTC).

MIRACLE OF B&J LLC VS MARILYN J ADAMS ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/10/2018 MIRACLE OF B J LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARILYN J ADAMS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0807

  • Filing Date:

    09/10/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MIRACLE OF B&J LLC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

ADAMS MARILYNN

ADAMS MARILYNN J. (TRUSTEE OF THE

MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

ADAMS MARILYNN J. TRUSTEE OF THE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY S. KIM

KIM GREGORY S.

SHIODA GENE H.

Defendant Attorneys

MOSS BRIDGET MCLAUGHLIN

FARKAS KATHERINE BLANCA

FELSENTHAL DAVID BERNHARD

FARKAS KATHERINE B.

COE LISA ANNE

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

12/1/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING TIME TO 10:00 A.M. FOR ALL HEARINGS SET ON DECEMBER 8, 2020

10/27/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING TIME TO 10:00 A.M. FOR ALL HEARINGS SET ON DECEMBER 8, 2020

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/18/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO FORUM

7/2/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO FORUM

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINAUANCE OF POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE, HEARING ON MOTION FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/2/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINAUANCE OF POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE, HEARING ON MOTION FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case Management Statement

5/22/2020: Case Management Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JAMES A. KIM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION FILED BY DEFENDANTS MARCUS AND MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE SERVICES OF SEATTLE AND RODNEY C. ADAMS, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

6/10/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JAMES A. KIM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION FILED BY DEFENDANTS MARCUS AND MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE SERVICES OF SEATTLE AND RODNEY C. ADAMS, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

Order - ORDER RE COMPELLING ARBITRATION

6/27/2019: Order - ORDER RE COMPELLING ARBITRATION

Motion to Compel Arbitration

5/1/2019: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

3/27/2019: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Order - Order re Defendants ex parte application

2/8/2019: Order - Order re Defendants ex parte application

Notice of Ruling

2/8/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/8/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

12/21/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

12/27/2018: Notice - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice of Case Management Conference

11/16/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Motion for Order - Peitition for Order Compelling Arbitration and Stay of Proceedings; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Spencer Reed

11/1/2018: Motion for Order - Peitition for Order Compelling Arbitration and Stay of Proceedings; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Spencer Reed

Proof of Personal Service -

10/3/2018: Proof of Personal Service -

73 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT); Filed by Miracle Of B&J, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Miracle Of B&J, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation to retain jurisdiction based on ccp section 664.6 and proposed order); Filed by Miracle Of B&J, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Forum Non Conveniens - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Forum Non Conveniens - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Docketat 4:15 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
102 More Docket Entries
  • 10/16/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Miracle Of B&J, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Miracle Of B&J, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • DocketProof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Miracle Of B&J, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC720807    Hearing Date: April 2, 2021    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

MIRACLE OF B&J, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

marilyn J. adams, an individual and trustee of the Marilyn J. Adams Living Trust, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC720807

Hearing Date:

April 2, 2021

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

Background

This action arises from the December 2017 purchase by Plaintiff Miracle of B&J, LLC (“Plaintiff”) of a commercial property in Boise, Idaho from Defendant Marilynn J. Adamas, Trustee of the Marilyn J. Adams Living Trust.

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing its complaint. Thereafter, on March 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint against Defendants Marilynn J. Adams, an individual and trustee of the Marilyn J. Adams Living Trust, Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc., and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“FNTIC”). The second amended complaint raised the following causes of actions: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) negligence; and (6) conspiracy. The complaint alleges that the seller of the property and the dual real estate broker in the transaction, Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc., conspired to fraudulently conceal from Plaintiff shortly before the close of escrow that the seller had conveyed a portion of the property to the Ada County Highway District and granted certain easements to this entity over a different portion of the property. (Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff also alleges that FNTIC breached its insurance contract to Plaintiff and engaged in insurance bad faith. (Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 14-15, 22.)

After filing this action, the parties engaged in arbitration, and this process resulted in a partial settlement between the Plaintiff and Defendants, Rodney C. Adams, as the successor trustee of the Marilynn J. Adams Living Trust, Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Seattle, Inc., and Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc. (Coe Decl. ¶2.) Subsequently, Plaintiff dismissed those defendants on March 19, 2021. Thus, FNTIC is the only remaining defendant as to this action.

Judicial Notice

The Court grants FNTIC’s request for judicial notice.

Legal Standard

“When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.30(a).)  In other words, the doctrine of forum non conveniens “is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.”  (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (“Stangvik”)

In considering motions based on forum non conveniens, courts undertake a two-part analysis.  First, the court determines whether the alternate forum is a suitable place for trial.  If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in litigating the matter in one forum or another.  ((“Stangvik”, supra,.) 

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation. 

(Id.)  The moving party bears the burden of establishing both components in the analysis. (Id.)  The trial court has considerable discretion to decide motions based on forum non conveniens. (Id.

Discussion

  1. Suitable Alternative Forum

The “threshold determination whether the alternate forum is a suitable place for trial” involves “a nondiscretionary determination” of whether the alternative forum: (1) “has jurisdiction” and (2) “the action in that forum will not be barred by the statute of limitations.”  (Investors Equity Lifesupra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1528-29, citing Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1032, 1036.)  “The ‘defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof’ to show the proposed alternative forum satisfies these requirements.”  (Investors Equity Life, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1529, citing Stangvik, 54 Cal. 3d at p. 751.)  The issue is whether the alternative forum is “suitable,” that is, whether the other court would be able to render a valid judgment against the defendants, and whether this action would not be barred by the statute of limitations in that other court.  (See Stangviksupra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751-52.) 

FNTIC argues that Idaho is a suitable alternative forum because the district court in Ada County, Idaho would have jurisdiction over the action and Plaintiff would not be barred by a statute of limitations issue. In its first amended complaint, Plaintiff raises two causes of action against FNTIC: breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In Idaho, the statute of limitations for the former cause of action is six years and it is two years for the latter (Idaho Code § 5-216; § 5-219(4)). These causes of actions are based on the denial of coverage letter that FNTIC issued on March 28, 2018. (First Amended Complaint ¶ 15.) Since then, it has been over three years, and as a result, it appears that Plaintiff would be barred from pursuing the second cause of action against FNTIC in a court in Idaho. The Court notes that in the Supplemental Declaration of Bridget M. Moss filed in support of FNTIC’s reply brief, she indicates that FNTIC will stipulate to submit to the jurisdiction of the Idaho courts and waive any claim that the statute of limitations expired while this case was stayed pending arbitration. Because this issue was addressed only in connection with FTNIC’s reply, neither party addressed the significance of this proffer by FTNIC in connection with the first step in the forum non conveniens analysis. Without this concession, the Court would not otherwise find that FNTIC had carried its burden regarding the first step in the analysis and it would not be necessary to discuss the second step of the analysis dealing with private and public interest factors.

The parties may address this issue at the hearing and whether further briefing is warranted..

DATED: April 2, 2021

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC720807    Hearing Date: April 1, 2021    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

MIRACLE OF B&J, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

marilyn J. adams, an individual and trustee of the Marilyn J. Adams Living Trust, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC720807

Hearing Date:

April 2, 2021

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

Background

This action arises from the December 2017 purchase by Plaintiff Miracle of B&J, LLC (“Plaintiff”) of a commercial property in Boise, Idaho from Defendant Marilynn J. Adamas, Trustee of the Marilyn J. Adams Living Trust.

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing its complaint. Thereafter, on March 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint against Defendants Marilynn J. Adams, an individual and trustee of the Marilyn J. Adams Living Trust, Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc., and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“FNTIC”). The second amended complaint raised the following causes of actions: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) negligence; and (6) conspiracy. The complaint alleges that the seller of the property and the dual real estate broker in the transaction, Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc., conspired to fraudulently conceal from Plaintiff shortly before the close of escrow that the seller had conveyed a portion of the property to the Ada County Highway District and granted certain easements to this entity over a different portion of the property. (Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff also alleges that FNTIC breached its insurance contract to Plaintiff and engaged in insurance bad faith. (Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 14-15, 22.)

After filing this action, the parties engaged in arbitration, and this process resulted in a partial settlement between the Plaintiff and Defendants, Rodney C. Adams, as the successor trustee of the Marilynn J. Adams Living Trust, Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Seattle, Inc., and Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc. (Coe Decl. ¶2.) Subsequently, Plaintiff dismissed those defendants on March 19, 2021. Thus, FNTIC is the only remaining defendant as to this action.

Judicial Notice

The Court grants FNTIC’s request for judicial notice.

Legal Standard

“When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.30(a).)  In other words, the doctrine of forum non conveniens “is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.”  (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (“Stangvik”)

In considering motions based on forum non conveniens, courts undertake a two-part analysis.  First, the court determines whether the alternate forum is a suitable place for trial.  If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in litigating the matter in one forum or another.  ((“Stangvik”, supra,.) 

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation. 

(Id.)  The moving party bears the burden of establishing both components in the analysis. (Id.)  The trial court has considerable discretion to decide motions based on forum non conveniens. (Id.

Discussion

  1. Suitable Alternative Forum

The “threshold determination whether the alternate forum is a suitable place for trial” involves “a nondiscretionary determination” of whether the alternative forum: (1) “has jurisdiction” and (2) “the action in that forum will not be barred by the statute of limitations.”  (Investors Equity Lifesupra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1528-29, citing Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1032, 1036.)  “The ‘defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof’ to show the proposed alternative forum satisfies these requirements.”  (Investors Equity Life, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1529, citing Stangvik, 54 Cal. 3d at p. 751.)  The issue is whether the alternative forum is “suitable,” that is, whether the other court would be able to render a valid judgment against the defendants, and whether this action would not be barred by the statute of limitations in that other court.  (See Stangviksupra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751-52.) 

FNTIC argues that Idaho is a suitable alternative forum because the district court in Ada County, Idaho would have jurisdiction over the action and Plaintiff would not be barred by a statute of limitations issue. In its first amended complaint, Plaintiff raises two causes of action against FNTIC: breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In Idaho, the statute of limitations for the former cause of action is six years and it is two years for the latter (Idaho Code § 5-216; § 5-219(4)). These causes of actions are based on the denial of coverage letter that FNTIC issued on March 28, 2018. (First Amended Complaint ¶ 15.) Since then, it has been over three years, and as a result, it appears that Plaintiff would be barred from pursuing the second cause of action against FNTIC in a court in Idaho. The Court notes that in the Supplemental Declaration of Bridget M. Moss filed in support of FNTIC’s reply brief, she indicates that FNTIC will stipulate to submit to the jurisdiction of the Idaho courts and waive any claim that the statute of limitations expired while this case was stayed pending arbitration. Because this issue was addressed only in connection with FTNIC’s reply, neither party addressed the significance of this proffer by FTNIC in connection with the first step in the forum non conveniens analysis. Without this concession, the Court would not otherwise find that FNTIC had carried its burden regarding the first step in the analysis and it would not be necessary to discuss the second step of the analysis dealing with private and public interest factors.

The parties may address this issue at the hearing and whether further briefing is warranted..

DATED: April 2, 2021

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC720807    Hearing Date: July 09, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

miracle of b&j, llc,

Plaintiff,

vs.

marilyn j. adams, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 720807

Hearing Date:

July 9, 2020

Hearing Time:

3:30 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS: CMC AND POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE

On June 27, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the petitions by Defendants Marilynn J. Adams, individually and as trustee of the Marilynn J. Adams Living Trust (“Adams”) and Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Services of Seattle (“Marcus & Millichap”) to compel arbitration of the claims of Plaintiff Miracle of B&J, LLC (“Plaintiff”). The Court also stayed the entire action pending completion of Plaintiff’s arbitrable claims. At the time, Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”) had a pending motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens (to which Plaintiff had already filed an opposition). The Court indicated in its June 27, 2019 order that Fidelity could seek ex parte relief from the stay with regard to its pending motion after meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel. Fidelity did not seek such relief.

On June 1, 2020, Marcus & Millichap filed a status report regarding the status of arbitration. In that report, Marcus & Millichap stated that arbitration had not yet been initiated by Plaintiff. On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff also filed a status report, explaining why arbitration had not yet been initiated but setting forth the actions undertaken by Plaintiff’s counsel to initiate arbitration. On July 2, 2020, Fidelity filed a combined request to continue stay pending arbitration and reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss or stay for forum non conveniens.

Accordingly, in light of the fact that the arbitration has not been completed, and in light of Fidelity’s request to extend the stay pending completion of the arbitration, the Court continues the hearing on Fidelity’s motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens to ___________, at _______ a.m./p.m. in Department 50.

The Court continues the case management conference and the status conference re completion of arbitration to ___________, at _______ a.m./p.m. in Department 50.

The Court orders the parties to file a joint status report regarding the status of arbitration at least 5 court days prior to the date of the continued status conference, with a courtesy copy delivered directly to Department 50.

Fidelity is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: July 9, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A NEBRASKA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where MARCUS & MILLICHAP COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FELSENTHAL DAVID

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FARKAS KATHERINE