This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 08:02:11 (UTC).

SYLVIA RUGGIERO, et al vs. PRABHA KAPUR, et al

Case Summary

On 06/06/2018 SYLVIA RUGGIERO filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against PRABHA KAPUR. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts, Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records located in San Mateo, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Grandsaert, John L. and Davis, III, Leland. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ********2882

  • Filing Date:

    06/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    San Mateo County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Grandsaert, John L.

Davis, III, Leland

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

RUGGIERO, MARTIN

RUGGIERO, SYLVIA

Defendants

ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS, INC., A CALIFRONIA CORPORATION

DOES 1-20, inclusive

CHEON, LILIAN

KAPUR, PRABHA

DOES 2-20, inclusive

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SCHUUR, PAMELA M.

Defendant Attorney

ROECA, RUSSELL S.

 

Court Documents

Stipulation & Order.

Stipulation & Order Type: STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS SYLVIA RUGGIERO AND MARTIN RUGGIERO AND DEF Comment Type: STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS SYLVIA RUGGIERO AND MARTIN RUGGIERO AND DEFENDANTS LILIAN CHEONG AND ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Signed by: JUDGE MIRAM Date Signed: 11/16/18

Case Management Statement.

Case Management Statement

Demurrer and First Appearance Fee to.

Demurrer and First Appearance Fee to DEFENDANTS LILIAN HEONG AND ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS INC.'S NOTICE Comment DEFENDANTS LILIAN HEONG AND ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS, INC.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER, ETC

Stipulation and Proposed Order received & forwarded to Dept.

Stipulation and Proposed Order received & forwarded to Dept 28 - BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS SYLVIA RUGGIERO Comment 28 - BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS SYLVIA RUGGIERO AND MARTIN RUGGIERO AND DEFENDANTS LILIAN CHEONG AND ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Proof of Service by SUBSTITUTED SERVICE of.

Proof of Service by SUBSTITUTED SERVICE of SUMMONS COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, NOTICE RE: NO Comment SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, NOTICE RE: NONREFUNDABLE JURY FEES, NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, (BLANK) CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, CIVIL TRIAL COURT MANAGEMENT RULES, ADR INFORMATION SHEET SERVED ON AGNES BAUTISTA, PROPERTY MANAGER

Notice of Case Management Conference.

Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons Issued / Filed.

Summons Issued / Filed

Civil Case Cover Sheet.

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint.

Complaint

Hearing on Demurrer.

~CIV Minute Order - Hearing on Demurrer 01/16/2019 Judicial Officer Davis III, Leland Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held

Motion to Strike.

~CIV Minute Order - Motion to Strike 01/16/2019 Judicial Officer Davis III, Leland Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held

Proof of Service by.

Proof of Service by BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL served on PETER CATALANOTTI with a Comment BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL served on PETER CATALANOTTI with a service date of 12/06/2018

Stipulation & Order.

Stipulation & Order Type: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND ORDER Comment Type: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND ORDER THEREON Signed by: JUDGE JOSEPH C. SCOTT Date Signed: 11/26/18

Declaration in Support.

Declaration in Support DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION Comment DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION

Case Management Statement.

Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement.

Case Management Statement

Proof of Service on CORPORATION LLC, etc..

Proof of Service on CORPORATION LLC, etc. SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, NOTICE RE: NO Comment SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, NOTICE RE: NONREFUNDABLE JURY FEES, NOTICE OF CMC, BLANK CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, ADR INFORMATION SHEET, SERVED ON LILLIAN CHEONG, AGENT FOR SERVICE

Amended Proof of Service by MAIL of.

Amended Proof of Service by MAIL of ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PRABHA KAPUR served on ELENA RIVKIN Comment ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PRABHA KAPUR served on ELENA RIVKIN

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/05/2018
  • Disposition: Judgment; Judgment Type; Dismissal - Without Prejudice; Party; Names: RUGGIERO SYLVIA; RUGGIERO, MARTIN; KAPUR, PRABHA; CHEON, LILIAN; ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS, INC., A CALIFRONIA CORPORATION; DOES 1 THROUGH 20; Comment: ENTIRE ACTION DISMISSED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Case Management Conference. Additional Info: Judicial Officer Grandsaert John L. Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Hearing on Demurrer. Additional Info: ~CIV Minute Order - Hearing on Demurrer 01/16/2019 Judicial Officer Davis III, Leland Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion to Strike. Additional Info: ~CIV Minute Order - Motion to Strike 01/16/2019 Judicial Officer Davis III, Leland Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service by. Additional Info: Proof of Service by BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL served on PETER CATALANOTTI with a Comment BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL served on PETER CATALANOTTI with a service date of 12/06/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request For Dismissal. Additional Info: Request For Dismissal Without Prejudice Comment Without Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation & Order. Additional Info: Stipulation & Order Type: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND ORDER Comment Type: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND ORDER THEREON Signed by: JUDGE JOSEPH C. SCOTT Date Signed: 11/26/18

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Ex Parte Fee Paid.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation & Order. Additional Info: Stipulation & Order Type: STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS SYLVIA RUGGIERO AND MARTIN RUGGIERO AND DEF Comment Type: STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS SYLVIA RUGGIERO AND MARTIN RUGGIERO AND DEFENDANTS LILIAN CHEONG AND ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Signed by: JUDGE MIRAM Date Signed: 11/16/18

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Case Management Conference. Additional Info: Notice of Case Management Conference CMC 2/21/19 Comment CMC 2/21/19

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 09/20/2018
  • Financial info for KAPUR, PRABHA : Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • Financial info for KAPUR, PRABHA : Case Payment Receipt # 2018-048877-HOJ ONE LEGAL LLC $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • Financial info for KAPUR, PRABHA : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • Financial: KAPUR, PRABHA; Total Financial Assessment $585.00; Total Payments and Credits $585.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Financial info for RUGGIERO, MARTIN : Case Payment Receipt # 2018-075940-HOJ COUNTY LEGAL $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Financial info for RUGGIERO, MARTIN : Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Financial: RUGGIERO, MARTIN; Total Financial Assessment $60.00; Total Payments and Credits $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Financial info for RUGGIERO, SYLVIA : Case Payment Receipt # 2018-038171-HOJ COUNTY LEGAL SERVICE, INC. $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Financial info for RUGGIERO, SYLVIA : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Financial: RUGGIERO, SYLVIA; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

herein relevant has resided, in the County of San Mateo, California.

3. Defendant Lilian K. Cheong (“CHEONG?”) is an individual who resides, and at all times herein relevant has resided, in Hillsborough, County of San Mateo, California. She holds, and at all times herein relevant has held, California Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers license number 006186. CHEONG holds an “AR” designation, meaning she is certified to appraise any 1-4 family property without regard to transaction value or complexity; and non-residential property with a transaction value up to $250,000.

4. Defendant ENDEAVOR APPRAISALS, INC. (“ENDEAVOR™) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in Hillsborough, County of San Mateo, California. It is owned by CHEONG.

5. Defendants were and are agents for one another.

6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued as Does 1- 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

7. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, each Defendant was acting as the agent, servant, employee, partner, co-conspirator, and/or joint venturer of each remaining Defendants. Each Defendant was acting in concert with each remaining Defendant in all matters alleged, and each Defendant has inherited any and all violations or liability of their predecessors-in-interest. Additionally, each Defendant has passed any and al] liability to their successors-in-interest, and at all times were acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, and/or concert of action.

8. Any allegations about acts of any corporate or other business Defendant means that the corporation or other business did the acts alleged through its officers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority.

9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, on that basis allege, that each of said Defendants, were In some manner legally responsible for the unlawful actions, unlawful policies and unlawful practices complained of herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and

capacities of said Defendants, along with the appropriate charging allegations when the same have been ascertained.

10. Venue is proper in San Mateo County. The Properties are located here. All agreements were executed here. All defendants are believed to be residents of this County. Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I11. In or about December 2006, KAPUR and Joe formed Edgeview Terrace Partners, a California general partnership (“Edgeview”). Edgeview had two partners: Joe’s limited liability partnership, Ruggiero Family Properties, LP and Ms. Kapur’s limited liability partnership, Kapur Family Properties LP. Joe had owned a variety of properties for years individually, as well as owning and sharing the management of other properties with long-time business partner and KAPUR. The Edgeview partnership agreement (“the Partnership Agreement”) acknowledged that prior to the partnership’s formation, Joe and KAPUR had each owned properties in their individual capacities since 1984, and had shared all profits, losses, income and expenses equally on the properties held in their individual names. Joe and KAPUR transferred their individual properties into Edgeview at its formation. The general partnership lasted until April 2017, when Joe passed. SYLVIA and MARTIN inherited Joe’s holdings in Edgeview upon Joe’s passing in April 2017.

12. The Partnership Agreement PRABHA and Joe were Edgeview’s managing partners. ‘ .The Partnership Agreement mandates that the qeath of a managing partner does not dissolve or terminate the partnership; rather, the remaining partner had the right of first refusal to buy the deceased partner’s interest, with the properties to be sold at a fair market price.

13. KAPUR is a licensed real estate agent, who actively managed all of the properties for which KAPUR and Joe had been sharing profits, losses and expenses since approximately 1984 (both before Edgeview was formed and after).

14. MARTIN and SYLVIA were grieving the death of their father, and had no experience or sophistication with real estate or partnership agreements.

15. Shoi'tly after Joe passed, KAPUR told MARTIN and SYLVIA that she was going to

15. Shoi'tly after Joe passed, KAPUR told MARTIN and SYLVIA that she was going to MARTIN and SYLVIA were entitled to at Jeast $10,000,000 more.

MARTIN and SYLVIA were entitled to at Jeast $10,000,000 more.

21. Since Joe was first admitted to the hospital with what would be his final illness, and continuing until the present time, KAPUR has made a habit of calling frequently (often using no Caller ID). KAPUR was careful not to leave detailed voicemail messages; instead, she would convey that she.urgently needed a return call. KAPUR would email as well; conveying urgent requests that MARTIN needed to sign documents. These documents have, at various times, included to sign a consent to dissolution of Edgeview that had been specifically drafted to release KAPUR of all liability for actions related to the partnership — while litigation is pending against the Parties and against KAPUR individually for conduct of the partnership. When MARTIN refused to sign such a release, KAPUR asked MARTIN to sign a simple certificate of dissolution without conditions, on a standard

form. KAPUR’s telephone calls have come at all hours of the day and night.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Against All Defendants

22. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the foregoing paragraphs as though each | were fully set forth herein.

23. As a real estate agent and the surviving partner of Edgeview, and as an appraiser of real property, respectively, KAPUR, CHEONG and ENDEAVOR are bound by their codes of ethics, and by contract, to act as MARTIN’s and SYLVIA’s fiduciaries. As Plaintiffs’ fiduciaries, Defendants were forbidden from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to Plaintiffs’ interests, or from acting for their own benefit in relation to the subject matter. As Plaintiffs’ fiduciaries, KAPUR, CHEONG and ENDEAVOR were obligated to provide their undivided loyalty, operate in good faith, with full disclosure, and to explain and counsel. MARTIN and SYLVIA were entitled to the best efforts of Defendants to ascertain the true fair market value of their father’s interest in Edgeview. Defendants were required to exercise all of their skill, care and diligence to do so. Fiduciaries such as Defendants are held to the highest standards of honesty and full disclosure and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of Plaintiffs.

24, KAPUR, CHEONG and ENDEAVOR breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by,

among other things, tricking them into selling their deceased father’s share of the real property owned

among other things, tricking them into selling their deceased father’s share of the real property owned San Mateo California 94404 Telephone (855) 239-4554 | Facsimile (408) 940-5922

San Mateo California 94404 Telephone (855) 239-4554 | Facsimile (408) 940-5922

RIVKIN FIRM

951 Mariners Isiand Blvd, Suite 260

O o0 3 O

by Edgeview to KAPUR for less than fair market value; by holding CHEONG and ENDEAVOR out as properly licensed to conduct appraisals on the properties held by Edgeview, and by withholding key documents and information from MARTIN and SYLVIA in the process.

25. Although the Partnership Agreement provides that the remaining managing partner’s appraisals shall be binding upon the estate of the deceased partner if there are not two appraisers, this provision cannot be a shield to protect KAPUR from liability for deception. She refused to honor MARTIN’s and SYLVIA’s requests for an additional appraiser.

26. KAPUR further breached her fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to provide multiple appraisals such that Plaintiffs could properly evaluate the true fair market value of the Edgeview properties.

27. KAPUR further breached her fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to provide information about pending and threatened litigation that would allow Plaintiffs to properly evaluate the true fair value of the potential liabilities.

28. KAPUR further breached her fiduciary duties by Plaintiffs by, among other things, compelling the Plaintiffs to sign agreements which provide for indemnification to KAPUR for acts KAPUR did not disclose.

29. In conducting the wrongful acts alleged herein, Defendants have been guilty of fraud, oppression, malice and willful misconduct. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Misrepresentation - Against All Defendants

30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the foregoing paragraphs as though each were fully set forth herein.

31. In convincing Plaintiffs to sell the properties to KAPUR for $16,125,000, Defendants represented to MARTIN a number of important facts as true. Among other things, KAPUR told Plaintiffs “don’t worry” that, “I will help you out with whatever you need” because “you’re like a

son to me.” Further, KAPUR, CHEONG and ENDEAVOR intentionally facilitated the

son to me.” Further, KAPUR, CHEONG and ENDEAVOR intentionally facilitated the San Mateo California 94404 Telephone (855) 239-4554 | Facsimile (408) 940-5922

San Mateo California 94404 Telephone (855) 239-4554 | Facsimile (408) 940-5922

RIVKIN FIRM

9851 Mariners Island Blvd, Suite 260

RIVKIN FIRM

951 Mariners Island Blvd, Suite 260

R a9 N

failing'to provide information about pending and threatened litigation that would allow Plaintiffs to properly evaluate the true fair value of the potential liabilities.

41. KAPUR further breached her fiduciary duties by Plaintiffs by, among other things, compelling the Plaintiffs to sign agreements which provide for indemnification to KAPUR for acts KAPUR did not disclose.

42, In conducting the wrongful acts alleged herein, Defendants have been guilty of fraud, oppression, malice and willful misconduct. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud (Concealment) - Against All Defendants

43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the foregoing paragraphs as though each were fully set forth herein.

44, KAPUR and MARTIN and SYLVIA were in a fiduciary relationship, by virtue of KAPUR’s status as a real estate agent and surviving partner of Edgeview. CHEONG and ENDEAVOR were in a fiduciary relationship, by virtue of their status as appraiser of the properties within Edgeview, knowing that such appraisals would form the basis of SYLVIA’s and MARTIN’s transaction with KAPUR.

45. Defendants disclosed some facts, but intentionally failed to disclose other important facts, making the partial disclosure deceptive. KAPUR, CHEONG and ENDEAVOR actively concealed important facts from Plaintiffs — that KAPUR had no intention of “doing right by Plaintiffs™, that the units were not assessed at fair market value, and that CHEONG and ENDEAVOR were not licensed to perform the type of appraisal required for these properties.

46. Plaintiffs did not know of the concealed facts.

47. Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiffs by concealing these facts.

48. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ deception.

49. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ deception. Because of Defendants’

misrepresentations, Plaintiffs” sold their father’s interest in the properties owned by the partnership

RIVKIN FIRM

951 Mariners Island Blvd, Suite 260

San Mateo California 94404 Telephone (855) 239-4554 | Facsimile (408) 940-5922

at far below fair market value, in direct violation of the partnership agreement. Their losses exceed $10,000,000 — the difference between the price Plaintiffs received from Defendant Kapur and the true fair market value of the properties.

50. Defendants’ concealment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.

51. KAPUR further breached her fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to provide information about pending and threatened litigation that would allow Plaintiffs to properly evaluate the true fair value of the potential liabilities.

52. KAPUR further breached her fiduciary duties by Plaintiffs by, among other things, compelling the Plaintiffs to sign agreements which provide for indemnification to KAPUR for acts KAPUR did not disclose.

53. In conducting the wrongful acts alleged herein, Defendants have been guilty of fraud, oppression, malice and willful misconduct. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Misrepresentation — Against Al Defendants

54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the foregoing paragraphs as though each were fully set forth herein. |

53. In committing Plaintiffs to a sale of the properties to KAPUR, Defendants represented to Plaintiffs a number of important facts as true. Among other things, Defendant Kapur told Plaintiffs “that, don’t worry” that, “I will help you out with whatever you need” because “you’re like a son to me.” Further all Defendants intentionally facilitated the misrepresentation that CHEONG and ENDEAVOR were qualified to appraise commercial properties of this value. Finally, all Defendants misrepresented the true fair market value of the units.

56. Defendants’ representations were not true.

57. Although KAPUR may have believed them to be true, she — as a realtor of many years of experience — had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true when she made them to

Plaintiffs.