This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 10:29:32 (UTC).

SVETLANA BUZINA ET AL VS CHARLES STREET INVESTMENTS INC ET A

Case Summary

On 09/08/2017 SVETLANA BUZINA filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against CHARLES STREET INVESTMENTS INC ET A. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5265

  • Filing Date:

    09/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BUZIN ARKADY

BUZINA SVETLANA

Respondents and Defendants

CHARLES STREET INVESTMENTS INC.

NAEEM INAAM RASHEED

NAEEM SHAHID

CARDENAS THREE LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

CHARLES STREET INVESTMENT LLC

Other

WANG JACKY P. ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GREBOW ARTHUR ESQ.

GREBOW ARTHUR JEFFREY ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

SCHORR ZACHARY ESQ.

TRONE DARREN P. ESQ.

WANG JACKY P. ESQ.

WANG JACKY PO-HONG ESQ.

BEHNAM SAMAN

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OFF CALENDAR

1/12/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OFF CALENDAR

Minute Order

1/17/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT AS TO THE STATUS OF THE CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY FILING

4/9/2018: PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT AS TO THE STATUS OF THE CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY FILING

Minute Order

4/11/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RE BANKRUPTCY FILING

4/30/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RE BANKRUPTCY FILING

Minute Order

10/3/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/13/2019: Minute Order

Notice

3/13/2019: Notice

Unknown

11/30/2017: Unknown

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONSOLIDATE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION; DECLARATION OF SHAHID NAEEM IN SUPPORT THEREOF, EXHIBITS.

11/30/2017: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONSOLIDATE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION; DECLARATION OF SHAHID NAEEM IN SUPPORT THEREOF, EXHIBITS.

DECLARATION OF SHAHID NAEEM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONSOLIDATE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION.

11/30/2017: DECLARATION OF SHAHID NAEEM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONSOLIDATE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION.

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONSOLIDATE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION WITH UNLIMITED CIVIL QUIET TITLE

12/4/2017: PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONSOLIDATE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION WITH UNLIMITED CIVIL QUIET TITLE

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12/6/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Minute Order

12/8/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

12/8/2017: NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

NOTICE OF RULING RE BANKRUPTCY FILING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/11/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE BANKRUPTCY FILING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order

12/11/2017: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS; ETC.

11/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS; ETC.

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Notice (OF CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE BANKRUPTCY); Filed by Cardenas Three, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy (Conference-Bankruptcy Status; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Minute Order (re Conference-Bankruptcy Status); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-10-03 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RE BANKRUPTCY FILING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy (Conference-Bankruptcy Status; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-04-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
61 More Docket Entries
  • 10/27/2017
  • Motion for an Order; Filed by Svetlana Buzina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • Opposition Document; Filed by Inaam Rasheed Naeem (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DEFENDANTS INAAM RASHEED NAEEM'S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Svetlana Buzina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Svetlana Buzina (Plaintiff); Arkady Buzin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUIET TITLE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC675265    Hearing Date: May 28, 2021    Dept: 32

sVETLANA BUZINA, ARKADY BUZIN

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES STREET INVESTMENTS INC., a Wyoming Corporation; CHARLES STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC, an unknown entity; INAAM RASHED NAEEM, an individual; SHAHID NAEEM, an individual; CARDENAS THREE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants.

Case No.: BC675265

Hearing Date: May 28, 2021

order RE:

motion for summary judgment

Background

A. Complaint

Plaintiffs Svetlana Buzina and Arkady Buzin (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action again Defendants Charles Street Investments Inc., Charles Street Investments, LLC, Inaam Rashed Naeem, Shahid Naeem, and Cardenas Three LLC (“Defendants”) on September 8, 2017. On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff’s filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting causes of action for (1) Quiet Title; (2) Rescission Based on Violation of Home Equity Sales Contract Act (California Civil Code section §1695 et seq.); and (3) Damages based on Violation of Home Equity Sales Contract Act (California Civil Code §1695 et. seq.) against C3. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows.

This is a case involving a sale of real property. Plaintiffs allege that in an effort to avoid losing the property to foreclosure, Plaintiffs signed a Purchase Agreement on or about April 2017 prepared by Defendant Shahid Naeem with Charles Street Investment, LLC. Defendant Shahid Naeem presented Plaintiffs allegedly with an offer in which “a buyer would purchase the Subject Property for $1,800,000 giving Plaintiffs the option to continue to live in the property, and to invest their equity from the proceeds from the current sale of the property, for improvements and updates.” (FAC, para. 20.) Plaintiffs allege that Inaam Rasheed Naeem signed the Purchase Agreement and the Equity Sharing Addendum, for Charles Street Investments, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the contracts prepared by Defendants, Shahid Naeem with Charles Street Investment, LLC, and or Inaam Rasheed Naeem, the Equity Purchaser, meet the requirements set forth in Civil Code §1695 et. seq. that include but are not limited to a provision requiring an equity purchaser to provide an equity seller with a specified “Notice of Cancellation” advising of the right to cancellation in accordance with Civil Code §1695. Defendants argue that in connection with the conveyance of the property, C3 loaned Charles Street Investments Inc. $1,560,000.00, which was secured by a Deed of Trust encumbering the property.

Plaintiffs argues that as the contracts do not comply with the terms set forth in Civil Code §1695 et. seq., Plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the sale and are entitled to recover damages and attorney’s fees.

B. Course of Proceedings

On March 3, 2021, Defendant Cardenas Three LLC (“C3”) filed a motion for summary judgment.

Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs cannot maintain their cause of action for quiet title against C3 because: (1) equitable title cannot defeat legal title; and (2) C3 is a bona fide encumbrancer.

Discussion

Defendants move for summary judgment on the only remaining cause of action alleged by Plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot maintain their cause of action for quiet title against C3 because: (1) equitable title cannot defeat legal title; and (2) C3 is a bona fide encumbrancer.

A. Equitable Title Cannot Defeat Legal Title

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ quiet title cause of action against C3 fails as a matter of law because equitable title cannot defeat legal title.

“It has been repeatedly held in this state that an action to quiet title will not lie in favor of the holder of an equitable title as against the holder of a legal title.” (G.R. Holcomb Estate Co. v. Burke (1935) 4 Cal.2d 289, 297.)

In their moving papers, Defendant addresses Plaintiffs as claimed holders of equitable title to the Property. Defendant argues that C3 had no involvement in the sale of the Property, the Seller’s Listing Agreement, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale, the Purchase Agreement, the Equity Sharing Addendum, or the 2017 Grant Deed. Notably, Defendants identify evidence that establishes Plaintiffs as claimed holders of equitable title to the property.

Defendant submits a separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of their motion. However, Plaintiffs fail to submit any opposition brief, separate statement, or evidence. Defendant submits evidence that, on May 5, 2017 a Grant Deed was recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office conveying the Property to defendant Charles Street Investments Inc. (SSUMF No. 7; Appendix of Evidence, Exhibit 7) On May 4, 2017, Charles Street Investments Inc. borrowed the principal sum of $1,560,000.00 from C3, which said loan was secured by a Deed of Trust encumbering the Property and recorded on May 5, 2017, with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. (SSUMF No. 8; Appendix of Evidence, Exhibit 8) On January 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a “Summary of Your Assets and Liabilities and Certain Statistical Information” in bankruptcy court in which they describe their interest in the Property as an “equitable interest.” Based on this evidence, Defendant has met its burden of showing that there are no triable issues of material fact on Plaintiffs’ quiet title cause of action. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs have not submitted an opposition, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of raising a triable issue. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

B. C3 is a bona fide encumbrancer

Defendant is also entitled to summary judgment based on its evidence that it is a bona fide encumbrancer. The general rule is that “[a] good faith encumbrancer for value who first records takes its interest in the real property free and clear of unrecorded interests.” (First Fidelity Thrift & Loan Ass'n v. Alliance Bank (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1440–1441.) “An encumbrancer in good faith and for value means a person who has taken or purchased a lien, or perhaps merely the means of obtaining one, and who has parted with something of value in consideration thereof.” (Id.) “A ‘good faith’ encumbrancer is one who acts without knowledge or notice of competing liens on the subject property.” (Id.) Defendant C3 contends that the C3 Deed of Trust is a valid position lien encumbering the property. C3 presents evidence that it parted with valuable consideration ($1,560,000.00) in exchange for the C3 Deed of Trust. (SSUMF No. 29.) C3 also presents evidence that it had no notice of any competing interest in the Property. (SSUMF Nos. 19-25.)

Accordingly, based on this evidence that C3 is a bona fide encumbrancer, C3 is entitled to summary judgment.

//

//

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Charles Street Investment, LLC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GREBOW ARTHUR