This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/05/2021 at 21:03:51 (UTC).

REBECCA WEST, ET AL. VS EDUARDO THACKERAY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/16/2019 REBECCA WEST filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against EDUARDO THACKERAY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4892

  • Filing Date:

    07/16/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

GIORGETTI LUCA

WEST REBECCA

Defendants

RODEO REALTY

THACKERAY EDUARDO

1 THRU 10 DOES

THACKERAY TRUSTEE EDUARDO

GRISWOLD ALEX

PALACIOS BELEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SLADE LAWRENCE P

Defendant Attorney

LEFF ANDREW

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; STATUS CONFERENCE (A...)

11/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; STATUS CONFERENCE (A...)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LUCA GIORGETTI

10/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LUCA GIORGETTI

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF REBECCA WEST

10/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF REBECCA WEST

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDUARDO THACKERAYS OBJECTION TO CONSIDERATION OF NEW EXHIBIT FILED WITH PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

9/10/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDUARDO THACKERAYS OBJECTION TO CONSIDERATION OF NEW EXHIBIT FILED WITH PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Opposition - OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EDUARDO THACKERAY TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DECLARATION OF CURTIS A. GRAHAM

8/7/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EDUARDO THACKERAY TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DECLARATION OF CURTIS A. GRAHAM

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING (RE 03/25/2020 HEARING);)

3/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING (RE 03/25/2020 HEARING);)

Amended Complaint - 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/17/2020: Amended Complaint - 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS RODEO REALTY INC. AND BELEN PALACIOS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

12/10/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS RODEO REALTY INC. AND BELEN PALACIOS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

Reply - REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

12/13/2019: Reply - REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE))

12/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE))

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING DEFENDANTS RODEO REALTY INC. AND BELEN PALACIOS' NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND CMC

12/20/2019: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING DEFENDANTS RODEO REALTY INC. AND BELEN PALACIOS' NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND CMC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; CAS...)

10/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; CAS...)

Case Management Statement

9/25/2019: Case Management Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANDREW LEFF ISO MOTION TO STRIKE

9/11/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANDREW LEFF ISO MOTION TO STRIKE

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/8/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/5/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/16/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

7/16/2019: Complaint

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/01/2021
  • Hearing07/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Arbitration)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference ((All-Purpose)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration; Status Conference (A...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Rebecca West (Plaintiff); Luca Giorgetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Rebecca West (Plaintiff); Luca Giorgetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Rebecca West (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Rebecca West (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rebecca West (Plaintiff); Luca Giorgetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Rebecca West (Plaintiff); Luca Giorgetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Rebecca West (Plaintiff); Luca Giorgetti (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCV24892    Hearing Date: November 04, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 4, 2020

Case Name: West, et al. v. Thackeray, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV24892

Matter: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Rebecca West and Luca Giorgetti

Responding Party: Defendant Eduardo Thackeray, personally and as trustee of the Thackeray

Family Revocable Trust


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.


On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The FAC alleges that “[w]hen Luca Giorgetti and Rebecca West saw the property located at 1217 Daniels Street in Los Angeles, they liked it but knew they needed more square footage than the house currently allowed. They made this absolutely clear to Belen Palacios, the real estate agent they met showing the house. 2. She promised them repeatedly that the home had fully approved plans for a 1,050 square foot addition to the property. Relying on her assurances, they purchased the property, only to discover that in fact the Seller had revoked those plans even before he put the property on the market, and the plans cannot be reinstated. Giorgetti and West now seek a refund from the Seller, Eduardo Thackeray, as well as tort damages, including punitive damages.” (FAC ¶¶ 1-2.)

Plaintiffs Rebecca West and Luca Giorgetti seek to compel Defendant Eduardo Thackeray to arbitration based on the residential purchase agreement (“RPA”) for the subject property. (Giorgetti Decl., Exhibit A.)

Previously, the Court continued the Motion so as to obtain a declaration authenticating the RPA. The Court allowed for objections as well as supplemental briefing.

The Court has reviewed the supplemental papers and finds that the RPA is sufficiently authenticated. (Giorgetti Decl. ¶ 20.) The objections are overruled.

The Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. The action is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

Case Number: 19STCV24892    Hearing Date: October 07, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: October 7, 2020

Case Name: West, et al. v. Thackeray, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV24892

Matter: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Rebecca West and Luca Giorgetti

Responding Party: Defendant Eduardo Thackeray, personally and as trustee of the Thackeray

Family Revocable Trust


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Compel Arbitration is continued.


On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The FAC alleges that “[w]hen Luca Giorgetti and Rebecca West saw the property located at 1217 Daniels Street in Los Angeles, they liked it but knew they needed more square footage than the house currently allowed. They made this absolutely clear to Belen Palacios, the real estate agent they met showing the house. 2. She promised them repeatedly that the home had fully approved plans for a 1,050 square foot addition to the property. Relying on her assurances, they purchased the property, only to discover that in fact the Seller had revoked those plans even before he put the property on the market, and the plans cannot be reinstated. Giorgetti and West now seek a refund from the Seller, Eduardo Thackeray, as well as tort damages, including punitive damages.” (FAC ¶¶ 1-2.)

Plaintiffs Rebecca West and Luca Giorgetti now seek to compel Defendant Eduardo Thackeray to arbitration based on the residential purchase agreement (“RPA”) for the subject property. (Giorgetti Decl., Exhibit A.)

On August 20, 2020, the Court tentatively ruled as follows,

Thackeray argues that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Specifically, Thackeray notes that he did not initial the arbitration provision within the RPA.

The Court rejects this contention as Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata attaching a fully executed RPA. Absent objection, the Court accepts this as a valid arbitration agreement encompassing the Complaint.

Defendant also argues arbitration was waived because Plaintiffs delayed requesting arbitration for months while litigating.

“Because arbitration is a highly favored means of settling such disputes, the courts have been admonished to ‘closely scrutinize any allegation of waiver of such favored right’ [Citations], and to ‘indulge every intendment to give effect to such proceedings’ [Citations.]” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 180, 189.) Factor to be considered in evaluating waiver include: “(1) whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether ‘the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked’ and the parties ‘were well into preparation of a lawsuit’ before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) ‘whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place’; and (6) whether the delay ‘affected, misled, or prejudiced’ the opposing party.” (Sobremonte v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 980, 992.)

The Court rejects that there was a waiver of arbitration because Defendant cannot point to prejudice which is of “critical” importance. (St. Agnes Med. Ctr. v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1203.) Defendant merely argues he has suffered expenses litigating, but this is insufficient. (Ibid. [“[C]ourts will not find prejudice where the party opposing arbitration shows only that it incurred court costs and legal expenses.”].)

Thackeray next argues the Motion should be denied under Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(c)-(d) because the remaining Defendants would not be subject to arbitration and there is a risk of inconsistent rulings. This lacks merit as the remaining Defendant are not a third-parties within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(c). This is because they can enforce the arbitration provision of the RPA to the extent they are alleged to be agents of Thackeray. (Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1405; Summit Fin. Holdings, Ltd. v. Cont’l Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705, 711; Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1984) 40 Cal.3d 406, 418 [alleged agents of signatory may enforce arbitration agreement].)

In sum, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. The action is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

The Court, however, allowed for supplemental briefing. The Court now rules as follows.

The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will not deny the Motion on the basis of Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(c)-(d). Further, Thackeray’s arguments as to waiver continue to lack merit.

Thackeray also objects to Plaintiffs’ notice of errata because the attached RPA is not authenticated.

It is not apparent this has merit as the notice of errata seeks to essentially substitute the correct RPA into the declaration of Giorgetti. But to erase all doubt, the Court continues the Motion to acquire a declaration by Giorgetti specifically authenticating the RPA attached to the notice of errata. Thackeray may file objections.

Case Number: 19STCV24892    Hearing Date: August 20, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: August 20, 2020

Case Name: West, et al. v. Thackeray, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV24892

Matter: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Rebecca West and Luca Giorgetti

Responding Party: Defendant Eduardo Thackeray, personally and as trustee of the Thackeray

Family Revocable Trust


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.


On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The FAC alleges that “[w]hen Luca Giorgetti and Rebecca West saw the property located at 1217 Daniels Street in Los Angeles, they liked it but knew they needed more square footage than the house currently allowed. They made this absolutely clear to Belen Palacios, the real estate agent they met showing the house. 2. She promised them repeatedly that the home had fully approved plans for a 1,050 square foot addition to the property. Relying on her assurances, they purchased the property, only to discover that in fact the Seller had revoked those plans even before he put the property on the market, and the plans cannot be reinstated. Giorgetti and West now seek a refund from the Seller, Eduardo Thackeray, as well as tort damages, including punitive damages.” (FAC ¶¶ 1-2.)

Plaintiffs Rebecca West and Luca Giorgetti now seek to compel Defendant Eduardo Thackeray to arbitration based on the residential purchase agreement (“RPA”) for the subject property. (Giorgetti Decl., Exhibit A.)

Thackeray argues that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Specifically, Thackeray notes that he did not initial the arbitration provision within the RPA.

The Court rejects this contention as Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata attaching a fully executed RPA. Absent objection, the Court accepts this as a valid arbitration agreement encompassing the Complaint.

Defendant also argues arbitration was waived because Plaintiffs delayed requesting arbitration for months while litigating.

“Because arbitration is a highly favored means of settling such disputes, the courts have been admonished to ‘closely scrutinize any allegation of waiver of such favored right’ [Citations], and to ‘indulge every intendment to give effect to such proceedings’ [Citations.]” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 180, 189.) Factor to be considered in evaluating waiver include: “(1) whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether ‘the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked’ and the parties ‘were well into preparation of a lawsuit’ before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) ‘whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place’; and (6) whether the delay ‘affected, misled, or prejudiced’ the opposing party.” (Sobremonte v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 980, 992.)

The Court rejects that there was a waiver of arbitration because Defendant cannot point to prejudice which is of “critical” importance. (St. Agnes Med. Ctr. v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1203.) Defendant merely argues he has suffered expenses litigating, but this is insufficient. (Ibid. [“[C]ourts will not find prejudice where the party opposing arbitration shows only that it incurred court costs and legal expenses.”].)

Thackeray next argues the Motion should be denied under Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(c)-(d) because the remaining Defendants would not be subject to arbitration and there is a risk of inconsistent rulings. This lacks merit as the remaining Defendant are not a third-parties within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(c). This is because they can enforce the arbitration provision of the RPA to the extent they are alleged to be agents of Thackeray. (Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1405; Summit Fin. Holdings, Ltd. v. Cont’l Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705, 711; Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1984) 40 Cal.3d 406, 418 [alleged agents of signatory may enforce arbitration agreement].)

In sum, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. The action is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

Case Number: 19STCV24892    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: December 19, 2019

Case Name: West, et al. v. Thackeray, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV24892

Motion: Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Rodeo Realty, Inc. and Belen Palacios

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Rebecca West and Luca Georgetti

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Strike is granted.

On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Complaint alleges that “[w]hen Luca Giorgetti and Rebecca West saw the property located at 1217 Daniels Street in Los Angeles, they liked it but knew they needed more square footage than the house currently allowed. They made this absolutely clear to Belen Palacios, the real estate agent they met showing the house. 2. She promised them repeatedly that the home had fully approved plans for a 1,050 square foot addition to the property. Relying on her assurances, they purchased the property, only to discover that in fact the Seller had revoked those plans even before he put the property on the market, and the plans cannot be reinstated. Giorgetti and West now seek a refund from the Seller, Eduardo Thackeray, as well as tort damages, including punitive damages.” (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.)

Defendants Rodeo Realty, Inc. and Belen Palacios seek to strike the Complaint’s references to punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Defendants seek to strike the request for punitive damages because they contend no facts are pled indicating that a director, officer, or managing agent of Defendant Rodeo Realty, Inc. acted with or ratified malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code § 3294.)

The Court agrees. Because there are no allegations relating to an officer, director, or managing agent of Rodeo Realty, Inc., the Motion to Strike punitive damages is granted, with twenty days leave to amend. To be clear, punitive damages are stricken only as to Defendant Rodeo Reality, Inc.

Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion as to attorneys’ fees, such that the Motion is granted in this regard. Leave to amend is denied.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RODEO REALTY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEFF ANDREW