This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/08/2021 at 05:09:31 (UTC).

OLGA RAMIREZ FLORES VS PEDRO FLORES FLORES, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/04/2021 OLGA RAMIREZ FLORES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PEDRO FLORES FLORES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0275

  • Filing Date:

    05/04/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RAMIREZ FLORES OLGA

Defendants

FLORES PEDRO FLORES

INC. RODEO REALTY

COMPANY INC. ENCORE ESCROW

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ROSIAK RICHARD

ROSIAK RICHARD JOSEPH

Defendant Attorneys

MARINO ANTOINETTE MARIE

TRESTER FREDRIC W.

 

Court Documents

Complaint

5/4/2021: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

5/4/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/4/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

5/4/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Notice of Case Management Conference

5/6/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) TO COMPLAINT OF OLGA RAMIREZ FLORES

6/28/2021: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) TO COMPLAINT OF OLGA RAMIREZ FLORES

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

6/28/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT INITIAL PLEADING) PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

6/28/2021: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT INITIAL PLEADING) PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Case Management Statement

8/19/2021: Case Management Statement

Proof of Personal Service

8/18/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Case Management Statement - CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

8/11/2021: Case Management Statement - CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

9/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/29/2021
  • Hearing11/29/2021 at 1:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • Hearing10/19/2021 at 1:30 PM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Olga Ramirez Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Olga Ramirez Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement (of Defendant); Filed by Encore Escrow Company, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (to Complaint of Olga Ramirez Flores); Filed by Pedro Flores Flores (Defendant); Encore Escrow Company, Inc. (Defendant); Rodeo Realty, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading) (Portions of The Complaint); Filed by Pedro Flores Flores (Defendant); Encore Escrow Company, Inc. (Defendant); Rodeo Realty, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice (in Support of Defendants' Demurrer to Complaint); Filed by Pedro Flores Flores (Defendant); Encore Escrow Company, Inc. (Defendant); Rodeo Realty, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Olga Ramirez Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Olga Ramirez Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Olga Ramirez Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21NWCV00275 Hearing Date: October 19, 2021 Dept: C

FLORES\r\nv. ENCORE ESCROW COMPANY, INC., et al.

\r\n\r\n

CASE\r\nNO.: 21NWCV00275

\r\n\r\n

HEARING: \r\n 10/19/21 @ 1:30 PM

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

#4

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE ORDER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Encore\r\nEscrow Company, Inc., Flores, and Rodeo Realty, Inc.’s demurrer to complaint is\r\nSUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants\r\nEncore Escrow Company, Inc., Flores, and Rodeo Realty, Inc. demurs to the 1st\r\n– 5th causes of action on the ground that they fail to state facts\r\nsufficient to constitute a cause of action.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nComplaint, filed on 5/4/21, alleges that Plaintiff Olga Flores (“Olga”) and\r\nDefendant Pedro Flores (“Pedro”) were in the process of a divorce action (Case\r\nNo. 20WHFL00394). Pursuant to divorce\r\nproceeding, Pedro was not permitted to sell the parties Los Angeles and\r\nPalmdale properties without Court order or written agreement. Olga and Pedro were the joint owners of the\r\nproperties under the business name, Richway Homes, Inc. Plaintiff filed a lis\r\npendens over the two properties.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Pedro\r\nlisted the Los Angeles and Palmdale properties. Defendant Rodeo Realty, Inc.\r\n(“Rodeo”) is where Pedro operates as a real estate agent. Pedro was the selling\r\nagent, and Rodeo was the broker. Defendant\r\nEncore Escrow Company, Inc. (“Encore”) was the escrow company. Encore was fully aware of the lis pendens,\r\nand escrow instructions were sent to Encore regarding what was owed to Olga. Encore released all the sales proceeds to\r\nPedro even though a lien was placed on the property and without the lis pendens\r\nbeing removed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based\r\nthereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nBreach\r\nof Contract

\r\n\r\n

2. \r\nCommon\r\nCounts

\r\n\r\n

3. \r\nFraud

\r\n\r\n

4. \r\nGeneral\r\nNegligence

\r\n\r\n

5. \r\nIntentional\r\nTort

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

JUDICIAL\r\nNOTICE is taken of Defendants’ exhibits. \r\n(Ev. Code § 452(h); Scott v. \r\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214\r\nCal.App.4th 743, 753.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1st\r\nCAUSE OF ACTION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BREACH OF CONTRACT:\r\n The elements for a breach of contract\r\ncause of action are: (1) the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse\r\nfor nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damages. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968)\r\n68 Cal.2d 822, 830.) In alleging a\r\nbreach of contract cause of action, it is necessary to specify whether the\r\ncontract is written, oral or implied by conduct. (CCP § 430.10(g).) To plead a written contract, a plaintiff must\r\ndo one of the following: (1) set forth the contract in haec verba; or (2) plead the contract’s legal effect by\r\nalleging the substance of its relevant terms. \r\n(4 Witkin, California Procedure 4th Ed., 479-481.) In order to plead an oral contract, a\r\nplaintiff must plead its legal effect, i.e., allege the substance of the\r\ncontractual terms. (Id. at 483.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

¶\r\nBC-1 alleges that Olga entered into Escrow Instructions with Encore Escrow\r\nCompany, Inc. in February 2021. ¶ BC-2\r\nalleges that Olga was the Seller; Encore was aware of the divorce proceedings\r\nand disregarded Olga’s Escrow Instructions, and gave the proceeds of the sale\r\nto Pedro and Rodeo, where Pedro is employed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The\r\ncourt finds the allegations are uncertain. \r\nPlaintiff does not specify which property the escrow instructions\r\npertained to, what was contained in the escrow instructions, and what Encore\r\nfailed to disburse to her pursuant to the instructions. Furthermore, Plaintiff was not a signatory on\r\nbehalf of Richway Homes, Inc., Pedro was. \r\n(RJN, Exs. A-D.) Therefore,\r\nPlaintiff does not appear to be a party to the escrow instructions.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\ndemurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

3rd\r\nCAUSE OF ACTION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

FRAUD: The elements are: 1) misrepresentation (false representation,\r\nconcealment, or nondisclosure); 2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); 3) intent\r\nto defraud or induce reliance; 4) justifiable reliance; and 5) damages. (See\r\nCC § 1709.) Fraud actions are subject to\r\nstrict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc.\r\nv. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 197, 216.) A plaintiff must allege what was said, by\r\nwhom, in what manner (i.e. oral or in writing), when, and, in the case of a\r\ncorporate defendant, under what authority to bind the corporation. (See\r\nGoldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th\r\n772, 782.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\ndoes not allege that Defendants made any misrepresentations, concealment,\r\nand/or nondisclosure. Further Plaintiff\r\ndoes not allege that she relied on any of Defendants’ actions. Finally, the court finds the Fraud cause of\r\naction fails for lack of specificity.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\ndemurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

4th\r\nCAUSE OF ACTION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

NEGLIGENCE: "An escrow holder is an agent and\r\nfiduciary of the parties to the escrow. The agency created by the escrow is\r\nlimited - limited to the obligation of the escrow holder to carry out the\r\ninstructions of each of the parties to the escrow." (Summit Financial\r\nHoldings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705, 711.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\ndoes not allege that she was a party to the escrow. Thus, Plaintiff failed to allege that Encore owes\r\nany duty towards Plaintiff regarding the transaction.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\ndemurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

5th CAUSE OF ACTION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

INTENTIONAL TORT:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court finds the 5th cause of\r\naction is uncertain. It is labeled\r\n“Intentional Tort,” but it is unclear what intentional tort Plaintiff is\r\nreferring to.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant demurs to a “Conversion” claim, but\r\nthe 5th cause of action does not allege Conversion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with\r\n10 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2nd\r\nCAUSE OF ACTION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ACCOUNT\r\nSTATED: The elements are: 1) Specified time; 2) place; 3) account\r\nstated between plaintiff and defendant; 4) addressing balance of specified or\r\nagreed sum due. (E.g., 4 Witkin, Cal.\r\nPro. Pleading (4th ed. 1997) § 526 citing Tringala v. Vest\r\n(1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 720-21.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

¶\r\nCC-1 alleges an account stated for Escrow Numbers 11324-TC and 113286-TC.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However,\r\na "demurrer to a common count is\r\nproperly sustained where the plaintiff is not entitled to recover under those\r\ncounts in the complaint wherein all the facts upon which his claim is based are\r\nspecifically pleaded." (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co.\r\n(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 601.) Plaintiff’s preceding claims do not adequately\r\nallege that Plaintiff had entered into valid escrow instructions.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with\r\n10 days leave to amend.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RODEO REALTY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROSIAK RICHARD

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROSIAK RICHARD JOSEPH