COMPLAINT FILED BY ROBERT DANIELL Receipt: 1404105 Date: 07/13/2023 July 13, 2023 (2024)

Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Thursday, J uly 13, 2023 2:27:28 CASE NUMBER: 2023 CV Docket ID: 773431896 Mike Fol CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIODH23-007854856307/13/2023 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO Civil DivisionFIG 20, LLC FBO SEC PTY CASE NO.1000 RIVERSIDE AVE, SUITE 400JACKSONVILLE, FL 32204 JUDGE Plaintiff COMPLAINT~Vs- Tax Certificate No(s). 2022-0000000178PARAGON SOLUTIONS 2022-0000000928CONSTRUCTION, LLCC/O JESSIE DIAZ, STATUTORY AGENT1233 FALKE DRIVEDAYTON, OH 45432 Permanent Parcel No. 139101603 0018MONTGOMERY COUNTY TREASURER Address: 4940 Franlou Avenue451 W THIRD STREET, 2ND FLOOR Dayton, OH 45432DAYTON, OH 45422 Defendants FIRST COUNT 1, Plaintiff, FIG 20, LLC FBO SEC PTY (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is a domestic limited liability company duly registered in the State of Ohio, in good standing, and authorized to transact business in Ohio. 2. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Chapter 5721 of the Ohio Revised Code, and has met all conditions precedent to the filing of this action.On or about January 11, 2022, the Montgomery County Treasurer sold to Plaintiff at negotiated sale in conformity with the statutory authority conferred by O.R.C. §5721.33, Tax Certificate No. 2022-0000000178, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the above-referenced Tax Certificate, and is vested with the first lien previously held by the State of Ohio and its taxing districts for the amount of taxes, assessments, penalties, charges and interest charged against the parcel described in the Tax Certificate, (hereinafter the "Parcel"), superior to all other liens and encumbrances upon the Parcel, pursuant to O.R.C. §5721.32(E) or §5721.33(G), and §5721.35(A). The certificate redemption price appearing to be due and unpaid is due and unpaid. Pursuant to O.R.C. §5721.37, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Intent to Foreclose with the Montgomery County Treasurer. A copy of the Notice of Intent to Foreclose is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. Pursuant to O.R.C. §5721.37(C)(2), the Montgomery County Treasurer has certified that theParcel has not been redeemed. A copy of the Treasurer's certification is attached hereto andincorporated herein as Exhibit B.Plaintiff states that there are also due and payable taxes, assessments, penalties and chargeson the Property not covered by the Tax Certificate, including all costs related directly orindirectly to the Tax Certificate, including without limitation, attorney fees of the holder’sattorney, anticipated to be approximately $2,160.00 and the fees and costs of theseproceedings.A legal description of the Parcel is set forth in the caption of this Complaint and is alsoattached hereto in Exhibit C. 2-10.Pursuant to O.R.C. §5721.42, Plaintiff has purchased, and/or may purchase subsequent additional Tax Certificates which are valid first-priority property tax liens on the subject Parcel.11.The sum of Plaintiff's first-priority tax liens on the subject Parcel is: (a) the certificate purchase price of $4,181.45 on Tax Certificate No. 2022-0000000178 plus interest at the rate of 0.00% per year from January 11, 2022, to the date of the Notice of Intent to Foreclose, and then at the rate of 18% per year thereafter (a copy of said Tax Certificate is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A); plus (b) the certificate purchase price of $2,040.35 on Tax Certificate No. 2022-0000000928 plus interest at the rate of 18.00% per year from September 28, 2022 (a copy of said Tax Certificate is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A); plus (c) The amount paid under division (B)(2) of O.R.C. §5721.37, in the amount of $1,688.07 plus interest at the rate of 18.00% per annum beginning on the day Plaintiff filed its Notice of Intent to foreclose under O.R.C. §5721.37(A); plus (d) costs and attorney’s fees anticipated to be approximately $2,160.00 as provided in O.R.C. §5721.30 through O.R.C. §5721.43. SECOND COUNT12.Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations set forth in the First Count as though fully rewritten herein.13.The following named defendants, to wit: Paragon Solutions Construction, LLC and Montgomery County Treasurer, have or may claim to have some interest in or lien upon said Parcel, but Plaintiff, not being fully advised as to the extent, if any, of such liens or claims, says that the same, if any, are inferior and subsequent to the lien of Plaintiff. 3-14. That pursuant to O.R.C. §5721.30 through §5721.43, Plaintiff may, from time to time during the pendency of this action or otherwise, advance money to pay demolition and other costs, acquire subsequent year tax certificates, pay subsequently-accruing real estate taxes and/or assessments and/or other charges, and incur costs and attorney’s fees, all of which will increase the first priority lien secured or represented by the above-referenced Tax Certificates.WHEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, Plaintiff demands: A) That the Tax Certificate(s) be found to be a valid first statutory lien on the Property pursuant to O.R.C. §5721.10 and §5721.35, and otherwise, for the amount so owing, together with Plaintiff's advances authorized by law for demolition and other costs, acquisition of subsequent year tax certificates concerning the Property, taxes, assessments, and other charges, costs and attorney’s fees. B) That such lien(s) be foreclosed, that the Court make its findings as provided in O.R.C. §5721.39(A) and (B), and that unless the amount found due together with costs of this proceeding and costs related directly or indirectly to the Tax Certificate, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees, be tendered to the Plaintiff prior to the filing of an entry of Confirmation of Sale pursuant to such proceeding, the equity of redemption of said parties shall be foreclosed. C) That all Defendants be required to answer and set up their claims in the Property or be forever barred. -4-D) That the Court issue an order that the Parcel be sold by the Sheriff, in the manner provided by O.R.C. §5721.19 and §5721.37 or otherwise transferred according to any applicable procedures provided in section 323.65 to 323.79 of the Revised Code, or, in the alternative, if the county auditor has determined that the true value of the subject parcel is less than the certificate purchase price, a decree transferring and vesting fee simple title free and clear of all subordinate liens to the certificate holder, pursuant to O.R.C. §5721.37(F), and that such fee simple title be forever a bar to all rights of redemption.E) That the property be ordered advertised and sold according to law.F) That from the proceeds of sale, Plaintiff be paid the amount found due it and in accordance with O.R.C. §5721.37(F) and §5721.39(D).G) That the costs of this action, as provided in O.R.C. §5721.37 and §5721.39 be taxed as costs and paid from the proceeds of sale.H) That the fees and costs of the private attorney representing the certificate holder in this action, as provided in O.R.C, §5721.37 and §5721.39 be taxed as costs and paid from the proceeds of sale;2 That upon the occurrence of all the conditions for forfeiture of the Parcel as provided in O.R.C. 5721.40, the Court issue an order forfeiting the Parcel to the certificate holder as provided therein, and directing the County Auditor, Treasurer, and/or Fiscal Officer, to remove and cancel all property tax and other liability imposed upon the Parcel prior to the date of recording of the deed as so specified in O.R.C. 5721.40. -5-J) That the Court grant such additional relief as Plaintiff may be entitled to at law and/or in equity. Respectfully submitted, Sandhu Law Group, LLC /s/ Robert E. Daniell David T. Brady (0073127) Suzanne M. Godenswager (0086422) Austin B. Barnes III (0052130, Robert E. Daniell (0098708) Adrienne S. Foster (0080011) 1213 Prospect Avenue, Suite 300 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: 216-373-1001 Facsimile: 216-373-1002 rdaniell@sandhu-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 6Type: TAX LIEN CERTIFICATEKind: MT‘Recorded: 03/02/2022 at 02:16:16 PMFee Amt: $42.00 Page 1 of 3Montgomery County, OHBrandon C. McClain RecorderFile# 2022-00014630 No. 2022-0000000178 DTE 121N Rev. O.R.C. §721.31(G) Tax Certificate (Negotiated Sale) This certificate will be canceled three years after the date of delivery pursuant 5721.37, unless the date is extended because of bankruptcy pursuant to O.R.C. oeBLSTIANON io Revised Code . the state of Ohio, | do hereby certify that, at a negotiated sale pursu: 1a 10 ORC. B21, certificate for the parcel listed below was offered and sold, and the certi delivery January 11, 2022 in Montgomery A. & Parcel Owner: WRIGHT-PATT CREDIT UNION INC Property Address: 4940 FRANLOU AVE Parcel a 139101603 0018 781.45 Lien Year(s): 3 niin: Legal Description (attach additional gets lecessal 18 MERRYMOUNT a is entitled to file a notice of intent to foreclose on The purchaser of this tax ceffifeate ar trans’ ace this parcel within six years after: is tax certificate, or by the date negotiated with the county treasurer. TI Own redeem this parcel at any time before the court files its entry confirming the sal |. Upon redemption, the certificate holder shall receive a payment equal, o the nee cate piitghase price with the interest provided in O.R.C. 5721.30(F), 5721.33, 57215 nor 57: ppplgable, over the period of time described in O.R.C. 5721.30(J) and 5721.38, plus thee reasurer Instrum fBpared" BeIG 20, , LLC FBO SEC PTY ificate Pu r: FIG 20, LLC FBO SEC PTY 1000:Riverside Ave Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL, 32204 Phone Number: (844) 729-5436 Certificate Purchase Price: $4,181.45 Negotiated Interest Rate: 0% Witness this 23rd day of February, 2022 . Signature, ‘Treasurer or designee. EXHIBITEndorsem*nt of Tax Certificate Transfer ng tax certificate numbet T to| hereby transfer all my rights, title, and interest In the foregoiName.Address.who has produced. as identification. ‘Type of l.D,Signature of transferor. Endorsem*nt must be acknowledged before a notary public. AcknowledgmentState of Ohio, county of bf , |hereby certify that the foregoing tax certificate was endorsed and aknowl- , by. , who is personallyedged before me this. day of, has produced, as identification.known to be the person described in the foregoing tax certificate or Type of LD.Signature. Notary public SealMy commission expires ‘LL Endorsem*nt of Tax Certificate Transfer num! ber. I hereby transfer all my rights, title, and interest in the foregoing tax certificate NameAddress.who has produced, as identification. Type of LD. Signature of transferor. Endorsem*nt must be acknowledged before a notary public. Acknowledgment State of Ohio, county of, | hereby certify that the foregoing tax certificate was endorsed and aknowl- by. who is personally edged before me this, day of, produced, as identification. known to be the person described in the foregoing tax certificate or has Type of 1.0. Signature, Notary pubiie Seal My commission expires.EXHIBIT “A” Situated in the City of Riverside (fka Township of Mad River), in the County of Montgomery and State of Ohio; and being Lot Numbered Eighteen (18) of the Merrymount Subdivision, as recorded in Volume EE, Page 78 of the Plat Records of Montgomery County, Ohio. Parcel Number: 139-101603-0018 Address: 4940 Franlou Avenue, Riverside, OH 45432 (“Property”)+ AAs ARAAR ane aType: TAX LIEN CERTIFICATEKind: MTGRecorded: 12/08/2022 at 08:16:57 AMFee Amt: $42.00 Page 1 of 3Montgomery County, OHBrandon C. McClain RecorderFile# 2022-00075476 No. 2022-0000000928 Tax Certificate % DTE 121N Rev. (Negotiated Sale) O.R.C. §721.31(6) This certificate will be canceled threeyears after the date of delivery pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 6721.37, unless the date is extended because of bankruptcy pursuant to O.R.C, 5721.37(A)(3)(b). In the state of Ohio, I do hereby certify that, at a negotiated sale pursuant to O.R.C. 5721.33, this tax certificate for the parcel listed below was offered and sold, and the certificate was delivered on: ~ SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 in MONTGOMERY County oN > oe Parcel Owner WRIGHT-PATT CREDIT UNION INC SN ~? fo we Property Address 4940 FRANLOU AVE /) Parcel No. 139101603 0018 Delq. tax $1,840.35 Lien year(s) 3 Legal description (attach additional sheets if necessary). 418 MERRYMOUNT_ SN . SS Sd The purchaser of this tax certificate or any transferee > entitied to. file @ notice of intent to foreclose on this parcel within three years after the purchase of this tax.certifi icaté, or by the, date’ égotiated with the county treasurer. The parcel owner may redeem this parcel at any time before tHe cout files its entry, confirming the sale of the certificate parcel. Upon redemption, the certificate holder shall receive a payment equal to ine tax ‘certifi icate purchase price with the interest provided in O.R.C. 5721.30(F), 5721.33, 5721.38, or8721. 42, asapplicabie, overthe 0 period described in O.R.C. 5721.30(J) and 5721.38, plus the eC county treasurer's fee. ss -—— ee we wy, SS Certificate purchaser Fico. uc FBO’ SEC aig Address PO Box 12228 Ne ND “07101-3411 Phone number (844) 729-5438 SZ Certificate purchase price $2,040.35 Negotiated interest rate 18.0000 % Witness this 28T iday of, SEPTEMBER, 2022y Signature: fam AM NenwaD Treasurer or DesigneeEndorsem*nt of Tax Certificate Transfer I hereby transfer all my rights, ttle, and interest in the foregoing tax certificate number, to Name.Address,who has produced. as identification. Type of |.D.Signature oftransferor. Endorsem*nt must be acknowledged before a notary public. a ‘ Acknowledgment & ‘NOState of Ohio, county of, , {hereby certify that the foregaing tax petilate was endorsed and acknowledged Nbefore me this, day of by. who: is personallyknown to be the person described in the foregoing tax certificate or has prodticéd as identification Oy ee. SEN, 4, wyN JSignature OP Notary public Seal SN aN £? RO XY SSMy commission expires aS “NN we CS Ss NAY Endorse nt, of Tax Certificate Transfer a interest in the forsdoind tax certificate number.Thereby transfer all my rights, title, ee ‘Name.Address. Vf SD om,who has produced, ge. ITA SA oP as identification. Sy ‘\.Type of 1,D. Se SSSA,Signature oftransféror. \ Endorsem*nt must be acknowledged before a notary public. wN a SN —) AcknowledgmentState of Ohio, county of] Thereby certify that the foregoing tax certificate was endorsed and acknowledgedbefore me this, day of by. who is personallyknown to be the person described in the foregoing tax certificate or has produced. as identification. Type of |.D.Signature Notary public SealMy commission expires.le » * % EXHIBIT “A” Situated in the City of Riverside (fka Township of Mad River), in the County of Montgomery and State of Ohio, and being Lot Numbered Eighteen (18) of the Merrymount Subdivision, as recorded in Volume EE, Page 78 of the Plat Records of Montgomery County, Ohio. Parcel Number: 139-101603-0018 Address: 4940 Franlou Avenue, Riverside, OH 45432 Property”)= Ae NAMANANDI ATS Naa. 2 ac4aNotice of Intent to Foreclose cate Daniell,_a private attorney on behalf of the tax certifiPursuant to Ohio Revised Code 5721.37, |, Robert of intent to foreclose with the Montgomery Countyholder, FIG 20, LLC FBO SEC PTY hereby file a notice dune 7, 2023.Treasurer on the following tax certificates on this date Tax Certificate Number(s): 2022-0000000178 Lien year(s): 3 Parcel No.: 139101603 0018 Parcel Owner: Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc. 45432 Property Address: 4940 Franlou Avenue, Dayton, OH Tax Certificate Sale Date(s): January 11, 2022 of ing required mi onies and fees associated with this noticeThe above certificate holder has submitted the followintent to foreclose: cates sold 4. Certificate redemption prices of any other tax certifi certificate on the parcel, other than the tax certificates held by the other side)............+ $ 0.00 holder filing this form (certificates listed separately on that are not 2. Taxes, assessments, penalties, interest and charges ...... recess $ 1,688.07 covered by a tax certificate (itemized listing on other Sid@).. .$ 1,688.07 3. Total paid on this date......... Signature: Z Robert Daniell, a private attorney on behalf of the Tax Certificate Holder, FIG 20, LLC FBO SEC PTY ed, the amount indi« icated i line albas been received Lhereby certify that the above certificate parcel has not been redeem by me and the tax certificate holder has filed a notice of intent to forecl ose on this date of. (a - -a0S Signature: asthuy Now ‘Treasurer/Designee 23-00785 en139101603 0018 Other Tax Certificate on Parcel1 Tax Certificate NumberLien Year (s) Certificate Redemption Price $.2. Tax Certificate NumberLien Year (s) Certificate Redemption Price $3 Tax Certificate Number Lien Year (s) Certificate Redemption Price $ 4 Tax Certificate Number Lien Year (s) Certificate Redemption Price $ Total (place on front of form) $ Taxes Not on a tax Certificate 2022 Amount §. 1,688.07 Lien Year Amount $. Lien Year Lien Year Amount $ Amount $ Lien Year Total (place on front of form) $__1.688.07wey Preliminary Judicial Report * PJR-80802306 kX Order Number: 183864Guaranteed Party Name: Successful Bidder at Sheriffs SalePursuant to your request for a Preliminary Judicial Report )hereinafter “the Report’) for use in judicial proceedings, OLD REPUBLIC NATIONALTITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “the Company”) hereby guarantees in an amount not to exceed $6,221.80 that: 4. Ithas examined the public records in Montgomery County, Ohio as to the land described in Schedules A. 2, That the record title to the land is at the date hereof vested in: Paragon Solutions Construction, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company by Limited Warranty Deed from Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc., an Ohio non-profit corporation recorded with Montgomery County Recorder's Office on October 17, 2019 as Instrument #2019-00058139. 3. That the record title to the land is free from all encumbrances, liens or defects of record, except as shown in Schedule B.This is a guarantee of the record title only and is made for the use and benefit of the Guaranteed Party and the purchaser judicial sale thereunderand is subject to Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions contained in Schedule B and the Conditions and Stipulations contained herein.This Report shall not be valid or binding until ithas been signed by either an authorized agent or representative of the Company and Schedules Aand B have attached hereto.Effective Date: June 14, 2023 Issued By: ‘OLD REFUBLIC NATEONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Midette MR Se> A Stack Lompany 400 Serond Avoouws South, Minnsopotis, Mineesote 55407 (B12) 370-1012Signed By Authorized Signatory or AgentPLEASE PRINT NAME BELOWMichelle M BrittonOhio Real Title Agency, LLC1213 Prospect Avenue ° CT Monro eitSuite 200Cleveland, OH 44115 Attest Avy todd Secretary EXHIBITORT Form 4276PAR 09/01/9014CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF THIS PRELIMINARY JUDICIAL REPORT 1 Definition of Terms 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims; Termination of Liability“Guaranteed Party”: The party or parties named herein or the purchaser The Company in its sole discretion shall have the following options:at judicial sale, a, To pay or tender to the Guaranteed Claimant the amount of“Guaranteed Claimant”: Guaranteed Party claiming loss or damage here- the Report or the balance remaining thereof, less anyunder. attorneys fees, costs or expenses paid by the Company to the date of tender. If this option is exercised, all liability of the“Land”: The land described specifically or by reference in Schedule A, Company under this Report terminates including but notand improvements affixed thereto, which by law constitute real property; limited to any liability for attorneys fees, or any costs ofprovided however the term “land” does not include any property beyond defense or prosecution of any litigation.the lines of the area specifically described or referred to in Schedule A,nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easem*nt in abutting streets, To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in thetoads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways. name of the Guaranteed Claimant any claims guaranteed by this Report.“Public Records”: Those records under state statute and, if a UnitedStates District Court resides in the county in which the Land is situated, To continue, re-open or initiate any judicial proceeding in orderthe records of the clerk of the United States District Court, which impart to adjudicate any claim covered by this Report. The Companyconstructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for shail have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject tovalue without knowledge and which are required to be maintained in the right of the Guaranteed Claimant to object for reasonablecertain public offices in the county in which the land is situated. cause) to represent the Guaranteed Claimant and will not pay the fees of any other counsel.2. Determination of Liability To pay or tender to the Guaranteed Claimant the differenceThis report together with any Final Judicial Report or any Supplement or between the value of the estate or interest as guaranteed andEndorsem*nt thereof, issued by the Company is the entire contract the value of the estate or interest subject to the defect, lien orbetween the Guaranteed Party and the Company. encumbrance guaranteed against by this Report.Any claim of monetary loss or damage, whether or not based on 7. Noticesnegligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estateor interest guaranteed hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall All notices required to be given to the Company shall be given promptlybe restricted to this Report. and any statements in writing required to be furnished to the Company shall be addressed to Old Republic Title Insurance Company at 4003. Liability of Company Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.This Report is a guarantee of the record title of the Land only, as dis- EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGEclosed by an examination of the Public Records herein defined. 1 The Company assumes no liability under this Report for any loss,4. Notice of Claim to be given by Guaranteed Party cost or damage resulting from any physical condition of the Land.In case knowledge shall come to the Guaranteed Party of any lien, 2. The Company assumes no liability under this Report for any loss,encumbrance, defect, or other claim of title guaranteed against and not cost or damage resulting from any typographical, clerical or other errorsexcepted in this Report, whether in a legal proceeding or otherwise, the in the Public Records.Guaranteed Party shall notify the Company within a reasonable time inwriting and secure to the Company the right to oppose such proceeding 3. The Company assumes no liability under the Report for mattersor claim, or to remove said lien, encumbrance or defect at its own cost. affecting title subsequentto the date of this Report or the Final JudicialAny action for the payment of any loss under this Report must be report or any supplement thereto,commenced within one year after the Guaranteed Party receives actualNotice that they may be required to pay money or other compensation for 4, The Company assumes no liability under this Report for the properamatter covered by this Report or actual notice someone claims an form or execution of any pleadings or other documents to be filed in anyinterest in the Land covered by this Report. judicial proceedings.5. Extent of Liability 5. The Company assumes no liability under this Report for any loss, cost, or damage resulting from the failure to complete service on anyThe liability of the Company shall in no case exceed in all the amount parties shown in Schedule B of the Preliminary Judicial Report and thestated herein and shall in all casesbe limited to the actual loss, Final Judicial Report or any Supplemental Report issued theretoincluding but not limited to attorneys fees and costs of defense, only of reduce the amount of this Report pro tanto and the Company's liabilitythe Guaranteed Claimant. Any and all payments under this Report shall shall terminate when the total amount of the Report has been paid.reduce the amount of this Report pro tanto and the Company's liabilityshall terminate when the total amount of the Report has been paid.Key Preliminary Judicial Report Issued By OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY * a ® File Number: 183864 PJR Number: PJR-80802306 SCHEDULE ADescription of LandSituated in the City of Riverside (fka Township of Mad River), in the County of Montgomery and State of Ohio, and being Lot Numbered Eighteen(18) of the Merrymount Subdivision, as recorded in Volume EE, Page 78 of the Plat Records of Montgomery County, OhioPermanent Parcel Number: 139101603-0018More commonly known as: 4940 Franlou Avenue, Dayton, OH 45432Prior Deed: Instrument #2019-00058139 SCHEDULE BThe matters shown below are exceptions to this Preliminary Judicial Report and the Company assumes no liability arising therefrom. 1 Covenants, Restrictions, Reservations, Limitations, Conditions, Agreements, Easem*nts, Rights of Way, Leases and Oil and Gas rights of record, if any. 2. Tax Certificate sold to: FIG 20, LLC FBO SEC PTY, 1000 Riverside Ave Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL 32204, in the amount of $4,181.45 filed: March 2, 2022 in Instrument #2022-00014630 in the Montgomery County, Ohio records. No attorney named. Tax Certificate sold to: FIG20, LLC FBO SEC PTY, PO Box 12225 Newark, NJ 07101, in the amount of $2,040.35 filed: December 8, 2022 in Instrument #2022-00075476 in the Montgomery County, Ohio records. No attorney named. The County Treasurer's Tax Duplicate shows: A Current Tax Balance of $0.00 which is unpaid Assessed to: Paragon Solutions Construction, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company Tax ID: 139101603-0018 **see attached tax printout Subject to Special Taxes and Assessments, if any. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Stock Company 499 Second Avecus South, Winnoapolis, Minnesota S547 (B12) 71-1 8 CT Monrs Fes Atiast haw tnd SeeretaryORT Form 4276 A&BPUR 09/01/20145. We have found no HOA within the scope of our search which is 21 years ‘OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Stock Company 400 Second Avenue South, Minnsapotis, Minnesota S540 1812) 371-1179 » CT Monre_ me Angst Nyc teed SeoretaryORT Form 4276A&BPJR 09/01/2014~MONT OMERY uty BIRTHPLACE #INNOVATION HOME » GOVERNMENT » ELECTED OFFICIALS » TREASURER TAX INFORMATION ‘To search for a Manufactured Home, please click here. You will be redirected to the Montgomery County Auditor's website. Master Appraisal Le Special Assessment BESS, Search (Current Parcel ID: \Property Owner for Selected Year: WRIGHT- [fax Year: Pay Taxes Now a [39101603 0018 IPATT CREDIT UNION INC. 2022 v Tax Information NOTE: Unpaid taxes from tax year 2021, payable 2022, show on tax year 2022 as delinquent. Please check tax year 2022 for unpaid tax details. Paid taxes show in the year they were paid in full. Please be sure to check the Master Information screen for Tax Lien Sale status. If "SOLD", contact the Treasurer's office for details. First Half Taxes (Tax Year JReal/Project |charge |Adjustments ‘ayments (Amount Due 2022 11777 $10.75] $0.00) ($10.75) $0.00) 2022 31200 $17.7] $0.00} ($17.71) $0.0 2022 41100 $1.00, $0.00} ($1.00) $0.0 2022 [Real $783.29} $0.00} ($783.29) $0.0 [Sub-Total $812.7; $0.00) ($812.75)] $0.00 Second Half Taxes[fax Year ‘eal/Project (Charge [Adjustments |Payments ‘Amount Due2022 11777 $10.75} $0.00) ($10.75, $0.00,2022, [Real $783.29 $0.00) ($783.29 $0.0Sub-Total $794.04 $0.0 (8794.04 $0.0 Prior Year Adjustments(Tax Year [Real/Project |charge |Adjustments Payments (Amount DueSub-Total $0.0 $0.00] $0.00 $0.0 Prior Year Charges/Delinquent Taxes{Tax Year |Real/Project |charge |Adjustments Payments ‘Amount Due2021 11777 $21.5 $3.34 ($24.84) $0.02021 31200 $17.7] $3.72 ($21.43 $0.02021 41100 $1.00 $0.21 ($1.21 $0.002021 {Real $1,516.58) $276.29| ($1,792.87 $0.002022 11777 $0.00) $1.08) ($1.08 $0.00}2022 31200 $0.00) $1.77] ($1.77 $0.002022 41100 $0.0 $0.10) ($0.10 $0.012022 [Real $0.0 $78.33} ($78.33 $0.0Sub-Total $1,556.79} $364.84] ($1,921.63) $0.01 5/10% Payments(Tax Year [Real/Project \Charge |Adjustments Payments Amount DueSub-Total $0.01 $0.00] $0.0 $0.0 Grand Totals |Charge [Adjustments Payments (Amount Due(Grand Totals $3,163.58 $364.84) ($3,528.42 $0.0 * Tax Lien Sold * Payments Posted thru June 26, 2023 Project Number Description 111777 |APC FEE 31200 |LT. LIGHTING 41100 [McD/AP MCD/AQUIFER PRES SUBD Copyright © 2023, Montgomery County, Ohio.

Related Contentin Montgomery County

Case

PRESTIGE FINANCIAL SERVICE INC vs ANGELA C BELL

Aug 25, 2024 |CIVIL |CIVIL ALL OTHER (CVAO) |2024 CV 04566

Case

DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT vs DONALD HARLOW

Aug 29, 2024 |CIVIL |DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY (CVAO/DISP) |2024 CV 04642

Case

HEADWAY CAPITAL LLC vs GHOSTLIGHT COFFEE LTD

Aug 26, 2024 |CIVIL |CIVIL ALL OTHER (CVAO) |2024 CV 04589

Case

COMMUNITY GAIN vs WILSON DU KWOK

Aug 28, 2024 |CIVIL |CIVIL ALL OTHER (CVAO) |2024 CV 04621

Case

NORTH VALLEY BANK vs DAY AIR CREDIT UNION INC.

Aug 26, 2024 |CIVIL |PETITION TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CIV. R. 34 (D) (CVAO/DISC) |2024 CV 04579

Case

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY vs ERIC NYE

Case

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs DANNIN BARNES INDIVIDUAL

Aug 30, 2024 |CIVIL |MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE (MF) |2024 CV 04671

Case

LFG PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC vs GUARDIAN CONTRACTORS LLC

Aug 26, 2024 |CIVIL |CIVIL ALL OTHER (CVAO) |2024 CV 04570

Ruling

INVESTORS TRUST REALTY GROUP, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS XIONG LI, ET AL.

Aug 29, 2024 |23PSCV01544

Case Number: 23PSCV01544 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 6 Plaintiff Investors Trust Realty Group, Inc.s Request for Entry of Default Judgment Defendants: Xiong Li and Long M. Chen TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. BACKGROUND This is a commercial rental property dispute. On May 22, 2023, plaintiff Investors Trust Realty Group, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Xiong Li, Long M. Chen (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, waste, and declaratory relief. On April 17, 2024, default was entered against Defendants. On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursem*nts; (5) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) ANALYSIS Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $4,251,880.36, including $4,251,880.36 in damages, $10,938.60 in interest, $11,160.00 in attorney fees, and $3,128.70 in costs. The Court finds multiple issues with Plaintiffs default judgment package. First, Plaintiffs damage request exceeds the amount demanded in the complaint. The only monetary damages specified in the complaint are $200,000.00. (Compl., ¶¶ 16, 23; Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 [[A] prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint. [Citation.]].) As for Plaintiffs statement of damages, that is permissible only for Plaintiffs punitive damages claim; Plaintiffs other damages listed in its statement of damages are improper. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.11, 425.115; Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968 [service of a statement of damages in an action not involving personal injury or wrongful death does not satisfy Code Civ. Proc., § 580].) Thus, Plaintiffs compensatory damages are limited to $200,000.00. Second, for Plaintiff to recover punitive damages, Plaintiff must provide evidence showing that the punitive damages requested is not excessive in light of Defendants financial condition or ability to pay. (See Cummings Medical Corp v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1298.) Plaintiff does not provide any evidence of Defendants financial condition. The Court also notes that it is not inclined to award both punitive damages and treble damages. (Kanner v. Globe Bottling Co. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 559, 568 [whether the damages should be trebled is left to the court's discretion. [Citation.]]) Third, the evidence Plaintiff has submitted does not fully support the amounts requested. Many of the cancelled checks submitted show Plaintiff paying itself. (E.g., Cirrito Decl., Ex. G, pp. 121-122, 126, 128.) Finally, Plaintiff requests inconsistent amounts in different parts of its default judgment package. The request for entry of default judgment specifies $11,160.00 in attorney fees, (Request for Entry of Default Judgment, ¶ 2, subd. (e)), while the declarations of Michael Kim and Michael Cirrito state $13,388.70 in attorney fees and costs, (Kim Decl., ¶ 10; Cirrito Decl., ¶ 27, subd. (c).) The declaration of Michael Cirrito states $441,086.56 in treble damages, (Cirrito Decl., ¶ 27, subd. (d)), while the declaration of Michael Kim states $661,629.84 in treble damages, (Kim Decl., ¶ 13). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Ruling

BARRY MAITEN VS ANAT EBGI, ET AL.

Aug 28, 2024 |23STCV11238

Case Number: 23STCV11238 Hearing Date: August 28, 2024 Dept: 82 Barry Maiten Case No. 23STCV11238 v. Hearing: August 28, 2024 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse Department: 82 Anat Ebgi, et al. Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch [Tentative] Order Granting Plaintiffs Application for Writ of Attachment INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Barry Maiten (Plaintiff) moves for writs of attachment against Defendants Anat Ebgi and Joshua Michael Rosenblatt (Defendants) in the amount of $63,074.42.[1] Defendants oppose the applications, which are granted. LEGAL STANDARD Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this article for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment by filing an application for the order and writ with the court in which the action is brought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.010.) The Attachment Law statutes are subject to strict construction. (Epstein v. Abrams (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1168.) Except as otherwise provided by statute, an attachment may be issued only in an action on a claim or claims for money, each of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars ($500) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney's fees. (Code Civ. Proc. § 483.010.) The court shall issue a right to attach order if the court finds all of the following: (1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued. (2) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based. (3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based. (4) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.090.) A claim has probable validity where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim. (Code Civ. Proc. § 481.190.) The application shall be supported by an affidavit showing that the plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based. ¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 484.030.)¿In contested applications, the court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make a determination of¿the probable outcome of the litigation.¿ (Hobbs v. Weiss (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 76, 80.) Code of Civil Procedure section 482.040 states in pertinent part: The facts stated in each affidavit filed pursuant to this title shall be set forth with particularity. Except where matters are specifically permitted by this title to be shown by information and belief, each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently to the facts stated therein. As to matters shown by information and belief, the affidavit shall state the facts on which the affiant's belief is based, showing the nature of his information and the reliability of his informant. The affiant may be any person, whether or not a party to the action, who has knowledge of the facts. DISCUSSION A. Notice Plaintiff has provided sufficient notice, and Defendants filed oppositions to the applications. B. Probable Validity of Plaintiffs Claims The application is based on Plaintiffs cause of action for breach of written contract (lease). To establish a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendants breach of the contract; and (4) damages incurred by plaintiff as a result of the breach. (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1367.) Plaintiff submits evidence that he entered a commercial lease with Defendants in February 2017, and that Defendants ceased paying the monthly rent of $2,636.38 on April 1, 2020, after the Covid-19 pandemic commenced. (See Maiten Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 and Exh. A, including Option to Extend, and Exh. B.) Plaintiff also submits evidence of the following: Defendants provided a 30-day notice on October 5, 2020, but continued their occupancy of the premises after the 30 days had expired. In January 2021, Defendants sent an email to Plaintiffs representatives indicating that Defendants would vacate the premises in 30 days. When the 30 days had expired, Defendants did not surrender the keys or confirm that they had vacated the premises. They continued to keep the utilities in their name and pay the utility bills. Plaintiff discovered that Defendants had abandoned the premises on or about July 31, 2021. (Maiten Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.) Plaintiff seeks recovery of principal damages for 16 months (April 2020 to July 2021) of unpaid rent of $2,636.38, for a total of $42,182.08 in unpaid rent. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of late fees of $6,854.59; interest of $4,218.21; and attorneys fees and costs (pursuant to a fee provision in the lease) of either $13,644.8 or $15,000. Plaintiff also indicates that Defendants are entitled to a credit of $3,825.34 for their security deposit (after subtracting $1,000 in labor and material for water damage to the premises). (Id. ¶¶ 8-13.) The court cannot discern from Plaintiffs declaration how the interest was calculated. Further, Plaintiff appears to have confused the calculation of late charges pursuant to paragraph 13.4 (10% of overdue amount or $100, whichever is greater), with the calculation of interest under paragraph 13.5. (See Maiten Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) The court will grant attachment of late charges of $4,218.21, as that amount is clear under the lease. ($42,182.08 x 10%). The court does not grant attachment of any interest, as Plaintiffs calculations are deficient. Further, Plaintiffs applications are unclear as to whether attorneys fees of $13,644.8 or $15,000 are requested. The court grants attachment of fees and costs in the lesser amount. Defendants have not persuasively opposed Plaintiffs evidence of a probably valid contract claim for unpaid rent from April 2020 to July 2021. Defendants concede that they failed to pay rent starting March 29, 2020, and retained possession of the premises until at least January 2021. (Ebgi Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.) Defendants concede that they served a 30-day notice in October 2020, but did not vacate. (Ibid.) They also implicitly concede that they did not return the keys until July 2021. (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendants do not submit evidence of any notice or written communications between January and July 2021 showing that they informed Plaintiff that they vacated. (See Ebgi Decl. ¶¶ 4-7 and Exh. A.) The court is not persuaded that the pandemic prevented Defendants from returning the keys in some fashion or giving notice that they were vacating. (See Maiten Decl. ¶ 7.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff shows a probably valid claim against Defendants in the reduced amount of $56,219.75 ($42,182.08 + $4,218.21 + $13,644.8 - $3,825.34). C. Basis of Attachment Probable Plaintiff establishes a sufficient basis for attachment. [A]n attachment will lie upon a cause of action for damages for a breach of contract where the damages are readily ascertainable by reference to the contract and the basis of the computation of damages appears to be reasonable and definite. The fact that the damages are unliquidated is not determinative. [Citations.] But the contract sued on must furnish a standard by which the amount due may be clearly ascertained and there must exist a basis upon which the damages can be determined by proof. (CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App. 4th 537, 541.) Here, Plaintiffs application for writ of attachment is based on a contract claim for which the total amount allegedly due is in excess of $500. The claim is not secured by real property. Plaintiffs claim arises from Defendants conduct of a trade or business, i.e. commercial art gallery. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs damages are not fixed and readily ascertainable because the number of months of unpaid rent, among other issues, are in dispute. (Oppo. 1.) Plaintiffs damages are fixed and readily ascertainable from the terms of the lease and Plaintiffs declaration. A dispute about the amount of damages does not mean that the damages cannot be readily ascertained and calculated from the lease terms. At heart, Defendants raise issues about the probable validity of Plaintiffs claim, not whether the damages are fixed and ascertainable. D. Purpose and Amount of Attachment The court finds that the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachments is based and the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. E. Reduction of Amount to be Secured, and Exemptions Defendants do not argue, or show, that the amount of attachment should be reduced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 483.015(b). Defendants have not claimed any exemptions. F. Subject Property Plaintiff requests attachments against Defendants, natural persons, of items listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 487.010(c) and (d). (Application ¶ 9c.) That request is proper. Plaintiff is not required by section 484.020(e) to describe the property sought for attachment with further specificity. (See Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 260, 267-268 [all-inclusive application satisfies CCP section 484.020(e)].) G. Undertaking Code of Civil Procedure section 489.210 requires the plaintiff to file an undertaking before issuance of a writ of attachment. Section 489.220 provides, with exceptions, for an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. Neither party has argued for a different amount of undertaking. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows: 1. The application for writ of attachment is granted in the reduced amount of $56,219.75 against each defendant. Although the court is issuing separate writs, Plaintiff shall not attach more than $56,219.75, i.e., the writs are intended to be joint and several. 2. Plaintiff shall post an undertaking in the amount of $10,000 for each writ. /// /// 3. Plaintiffs counsel shall prepare and lodge revised Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment on Forms AT-120 reflecting the courts ruling. 4. Plaintiffs counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: August 28, 2024 ______________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Superior Court Judge [1] Plaintiff filed four applications for writ of attachment on May 22, 30, and 31, 2024, three against Rosenblatt and one against Ebgi. All four applications seek attachment of $63,074.42, albeit three seek attorneys fees of $13,644.88, while one (against Rosenblatt) seeks attorneys fees of $15,000. The court treats these applications as one application seeking attachment of $63,074.42 against both Rosenblatt and Ebgi, jointly and severally.

Ruling

RAMIRO S. LOPEZ VS SANDRA GARCIA, A NATURAL PERSON, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE MARIA LUISA SANDOVAL TRUST., ET AL.

Sep 03, 2024 |23PSCV01693

Case Number: 23PSCV01693 Hearing Date: September 3, 2024 Dept: G Plaintiff Ramiro S. Lopezs Motion to Determine Value and Send Buyout Notice Respondent: Defendant Sandra Garcia TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Ramiro S. Lopezs Motion to Determine Value and Send Buyout Notice is DENIED. The court intends to direct that a court-ordered appraisal be conducted pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §874.316 (d) within forty-five (45) days, each party to bear the costs of the appraisal equally. BACKGROUND This is a partition action involving real property in Pomona. In April 1994, Maria Luisa Sandoval and Plaintiff Ramiro S. Lopez acquired the Pomona property through a grant deed as tenants-in-common. In February 2022, Sandoval and Lopez mortgaged the Pomona property through Defendant Travelers Bank & Trust (Travelers). In May 2004, Sandoval and Lopez also mortgaged the Pomona property through Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). After Sandoval passed away in October 2022, the relationship between Lopez and Defendant Sandra Garcia, the successor trustee of the Maria Luisa Sandoval Trust (Sandoval Trust), allegedly deteriorated. On June 6, 2023, Lopez filed a complaint against Garcia, MERS, Travelers, and Does 1-10, alleging a cause of action for partition. On October 16, 2023, the court granted Garcias motion to strike portions of Lopezs Complaint. On October 18, 2023, Lopez filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same cause of action. On June 13, 2024, Lopez filed a motion to determine value and send buyout notice that the court denied on July 11, 2024. On July 24, 2024, Lopez filed the present motion. On August 26, 2024, Garcia filed a motion to determine value and send a buyout notice. A hearing on Lopezs motion and a post-mediation status conference/trial setting conference are set for September 3, 2024, while a hearing on Garcias motion is set for October 2, 2024. ANALYSIS Lopez petitions the court to determine the fair market value of the Pomona property and send a buyout notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Lopezs motion. In partition actions brought pursuant to the Partition of Real Property Act, the court determines the fair market value of the property by ordering an appraisal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316.) But [i]f the court determines that the evidentiary value of an appraisal is outweighed by the cost of the appraisal, the court, after an evidentiary hearing, shall determine the fair market value of the property and send notice to the parties of the value. (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subd. (c).) In this case, Lopez moves the court to adopt a $600,000 appraisal of the Pomona property that was completed on September 20, 2023, by Jacinto A. Munoz, a certified appraiser. (Sikavi Decl., ¶ 4, 12, Ex. 6.) Lopez argues the evidentiary value of this appraisal outweighs the cost of an appraisal. (Motion, p. 7:7-11.) But this argument is based on a reversal of the statutory standard which looks at whether the cost outweighs the evidentiary value of a court-ordered appraisal as opposed to if the cost outweighs the evidentiary value of one of the parties appraisals. Furthermore, the court finds a court-ordered appraisal is likely of great evidentiary value as Lopezs appraisal is now almost one year old. Accordingly, the court finds that Lopez fails to establish why a court-ordered appraisal is cost-prohibitive. Therefore, Lopezs motion is DENIED. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Lopezs motion to determine value and send buyout notice. The court intends to direct that a court-ordered appraisal be conducted pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §874.316 (d) within forty-five (45) days, each party to bear the costs of the appraisal equally. The court will order each side to submit the names of three (3) real estate appraisers licensed in California to determine the value of the subject property assuming sole ownership of the fee simple estate (Code of Civil Procedure §874.316 (d)).

Ruling

RISSMAN vs RISSMAN

Sep 01, 2024 |CVRI2202453

Ruling

COLEMAN vs. SANCHEZ, et al.

Sep 01, 2024 |CVCV21-0197682

COLEMAN VS. SANCHEZ, ET AL.Case Number: CVCV21-0197682This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of judgment. A Judgment was filed andexecuted on August 9, 2024. Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed August 20, 2024. Noappearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

Angeles Contractor, Inc., et al vs Santa Cruz Hotel, L.P, et al

Sep 01, 2024 |20CV01281

20CV01281ANGELES CONTRACTOR INC. v. SANTA CRUZ HOTEL LP CROSS-DEFENDANT ANGELES CONTRACTOR’S DEMURRER TO SANTA CRUZ HOTEL’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT The demurrer is overruled. Page 1 of 2 Cross-defendant Angeles Contractor argues that Santa Cruz Hotel’s Third AmendedComplaint (TAC) fails to state facts to support these the causes of action for negligence, fraudand negligent misrepresentation and that these claims are barred by California law. However, Santa Cruz Hotel has pled facts indicating that an independent duty of careexists outside the contract for negligence (causing property damage). (TAC ¶¶ 72-79.) Further,Santa Cruz Hotel now specifically alleges the parties, their statements, and sufficient detailsrelated to their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it wassaid or written for supporting its causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation (TAC¶¶ 93-123.) (Kalnoki v. First Am. Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23, 35.) Angeles Contractor’s arguments go to the merits of the causes of action. At this point inthis four-year-old case, the pleadings in this matter must be set so the parties can proceed to trythis case on its merits. Angeles Contractor’s Request for Judicial Notice: Exhibits A and B: Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Notice of Entry of Stipulated FinalJudgment in People v. Santa Cruz Hotel, LP, Santa Cruz Superior No. 19CV02338: Granted.Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal orderincorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating thetentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, inaccordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if theprevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative issimply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition ofsanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed. Page 2 of 2

Ruling

MJ GLOBAL ENTERPRISE, INC. VS EVERYTABLE, PBC

Aug 27, 2024 |24NWCV00798

Case Number: 24NWCV00798 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: C MJ Global Enterprise, Inc. vs Everytable, PBC Case No.: 24NWCV00798 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m. #5 Tentative Ruling Defendant Everytable, PBCs Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Plaintiff MJ Global Enterprise, Inc.s Motions to Compel Further Response to Request for Admissions (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) are MOOT. Defendant to give notice. Background This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff MJ Global Enterprise, Inc. (MJ Global) filed suit against Defendant Everytable, PBC (Everytable) alleging failure to pay rent in the amount of $239,287.00. There are three other actions pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court involving the same parties: In LASC Case No. 24NWCV01115, Sonterra Capital, the fee owner of the real property located at 3305 East Vernon A venue, Vernon, CA 90058 ("Subject Property"), filed an unlawful detainer action against its lessee and sublandlord, MJ Global, and its sublessees Everytable and Pitman Enterprises USA Inc. ("Pitman") for possession of the Subject Property. In LASC Case No. 24STCP02038, Apex Funding Source, LLP applies for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State (New York) Judgment against MJ Global and Hyung Do Min. In LASC Case No. 24STCV02343, Everytable filed an interpleader action after MJ Global and Apex Funding presented Everytable with competing demands for the rent at issue in this unlawful detainer case. The interpleader action names MJ Global and Apex Funding as claimants. On January 31, 2024, Everytable deposited with the Court the exact amount rent MJ Global claims is outstanding in this unlawful detainer action (i.e., $239,286.79). Requests For Judicial Notice The Court GRANTS Defendants requests for judicial notice, including the request to take judicial notice of the Minute Order entered on August 13, 2024 in Everytable, PBC v. MJ Global Enterprise, Inc., et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV02343 relating to Everytables Motion for Order Discharging Stakeholder Everytable and for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) The Court takes judicial notice only as to the existence, content, and authenticity of such documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted therein. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.) On its own motion, the Court takes judicial notice of the Minute Order entered on August 13, 2024 in Everytable, PBC v. MJ Global Enterprise, Inc., et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV02343 relating to MJ Globals demurrer to the Everytables Complaint in Interpleader. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law. (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 (internal citations omitted).) Discussion Any person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386(b).) The Court has taken judicial notice of the Minute Order dated August 13, 2024 in the interpleader action. The Minute Order states that Plaintiff Everytable, PBC is discharged from liability and dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386.5 regarding the funds deposited with the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $387,285 in connection with this action. (See LASC Case No. 24STCV02343, 8-13-24 Minute Order.) These funds consist of $239,286.79 deposited with the Court on or about January 30, 2024 and $147,988.21 deposited with the Court on or about March 1, 2024. In the interpleader action, the court found that the Complaint alleges sufficient facts showing a reasonable probability of double vexation, or a valid threat of double vexation. The Court finds the Complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendants make conflicting, adverse claims to the same thing, that is, Plaintiffs rent payments, and that Plaintiff cannot safely determine which claim is right and lawful. (LASC Case No. 24STCV02343, 8-13-24 Minute Order.) The court further found that Plaintiff does not have an interest in the Interplead Funds that were deposited, and therefore is sufficiently disinterested and neutral under Code of Civil Procedure sections 386 and 386.5. (Ibid.) When the ground of demurrer is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the demurrer, or in the supporting points and authorities for the purpose of invoking such notice, except as the court may otherwise permit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.70.) Based upon judicial notice of the August 13, 2024 minute order in Case No. 24STCV02343, Defendant has demonstrated that it has deposited with the Court the full amount of rent due, and that it should be discharged from liability in the instant unlawful detainer action. [T]he basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in CCP §1161(2) are: (1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed. (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16.) Under the circ*mstances here, the Court finds there is no defaulted payment. In its Supplemental Opposition filed on August 23, 2024, MJ Global argues that the interpleader court, in its August 13, 2024 ruling on Everytables Motion to be Discharged, did not litigate the breach of lease or any other matter between the parties. While that is correct, the courts ruling should not be interpreted to mean that the court will not determine the respective rights of the remaining parties to the deposited funds. To provide context, this Court notes the following portion of the August 13, 2024 ruling regarding MJ Globals demurrer: Here, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that it not [sic] required to litigate, at this stage of the action and for purposes of a demurrer, the legal dispute between Defendant MJ Global and Defendant Apex with respect to whether the rent payments must be paid to Defendant Apex pursuant to either the letter or the Judgment, or to Defendant MJ Global pursuant to the lease agreements. (Minute Order, 8/13/24, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24STCV02343, italics added.) Now that Everytable has demonstrated its right to interplead the funds, Defendants are now compelled to litigate their respective claims to those funds. (CCP § 386(b).) That is done in the interpleader court, not in this court. Accordingly, Defendants Demurrer is SUSTAINED. For the Court to grant leave to amend, Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 335, 349, quotations omitted.) Because Everytable has deposited the full amount of rent due with the Court and Everytable has been discharged from the interpleader action, the Court does not find that leave to amend would allow MJ Global to sufficiently allege an unlawful detainer action. Accordingly, leave to amend is DENIED. MJ Globals Motions to Compel Further Responses Because the Court has sustained the Demurrer without leave to amend, MJ Globals motions to compel further discovery responses are MOOT.

Ruling

JAMES LEE VS EMAAR LA PROPERTIES, LLC

Aug 27, 2024 |SC129270

Case Number: SC129270 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE August 27, 2024 CASE NUMBER SC129270 MOTION Motion for Attorneys Fees MOVING PARTIES Cross-Complainants Emaar LA Properties, LLC and EJL Homes Realty and Construction, Inc. OPPOSING PARTY none MOTION Cross-Complainants Emaar LA Properties, LLC (Emaar) and EJL Homes Realty & Construction, Inc. (EJL) (together, Cross-Complainants) filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SACC) against Cross-Defendant JCL Contractors, Inc. (JCL) alleging five causes of action for (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Breach of Express Warranty; (3) Breach of Implied Warranties; (4) Negligence; and (5) Declaratory Relief stemming from a dispute over JCLs improper work on a 22-story luxury high rise condominium project called Beverly West. Default was entered against JCL on July 11, 2024, and Cross-Complaints have requested entry of Default Judgment against JCL. Cross-Complainants separately request their attorneys fees incurred in the amount of $277,822.75 to Lee, Landrum & Ingle and $49,845.90 to Pursiano Law, LLP. JCL has defaulted and has therefore not opposed the motion. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, which outlines recoverable costs to a prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, permits the recovery of attorneys fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 provides [e]xcept as attorneys fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties [&.] Similarly, Civil Code section 1717 provides [i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorneys fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees in addition to other costs. (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure defines the prevailing party as follows: [T]he party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the prevailing party shall be as determined by the court, and under those circ*mstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) ANALYSIS Provision 14.1.9 of the parties contract provides: 14.1 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events and the continuation thereof for a period of forty-eight (48) hours following written or oral notice thereof by Contractor to Trade Contractor shall constitute an "Event of Default" by Trade Contractor: 14.1.1 Trade Contractor fails to complete the whole or any portion of the Work in a timely manner, or in the opinion of Contractor, Trade Contractor is not making sufficient progress with the Work, either due to lack of material, personnel or otherwise [. . .] 14.1.3 Contractor or any other trade contractor(s) shall be unable to proceed with the Project or any portion thereof because of any action of Trade Contractor or any employee, agent, subcontractor, supplier or invitee of Trade Contractor or by any person or labor organization purporting or attempting to represent any employee of Trade Contractor or the presence of Trade Contractor or its subcontractors on the Project causes any labor relations problems, including but not limited to picketing, strikes, slowdowns or interference with the operations of Contractor; 14.1.4 Trade Contractor fails to remedy any defect of material or workmanship furnished by it when and as required by Contractor or Contractor's third party peer reviewers [. . .] 14.1.7 Trade Contractor substitutes materials without Contractor's written consent; 14.1.8 Trade Contractor assigns its obligations, or any part thereof, to another trade contractor or supplier without Contractor's prior written consent; or 14.1.9 Trade Contractor violates any other provision of this Agreement; UPON AN EVENT OF DEFAULT, CONTRACTOR MAY, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO TRADE CONTRACTOR, TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART AND, EITHER THROUGH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES OR THROUGH ANY TRADE CONTRACTOR OF ITS CHOICE, COMPLETE THE WORK OR REMEDY ANY DEFECT OF MATERIAL OR WORKMANSHIP AND UPON SUCH TERMINATION, TRADE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LIABLE TO CONTRACTOR FOR ANY AND ALL LOSS, DAMAGE OR EXPENSE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SUFFERED BY CONTRACTOR FROM SUCH EVENT OF DEFAULT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES INCURRED OR PAID BY CONTRACTOR. THE COSTS AND DAMAGES INCURRED BY CONTRACTOR AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM ALL AMOUNT DUE OR TO BECOME DUE TO TRADE CONTRACTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONTRACTOR OR ITS AFFILIATES AND TRADE CONTRACTOR, HOWEVER SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OR RELEASE OF ANY OBLIGATIONS OF TRADE CONTRACTOR, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LOSS OR LIABILITY OF TRADE CONTRACTOR IN EXCESS OF ANY SUCH DEDUCTION. IF CONTRACTOR MUST USE ITS OWN LABOR TO COMPLETE ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE WORK OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTY SERVICE WORK, CONTRACTOR'S LABOR SHALL BE CHARGED AT THE RATE OF FIFTY ($50) DOLLARS PER HOUR. IF CONTRACTOR, THROUGH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES OR THROUGH ANY SUCH TRADE CONTRACTOR OF ITS CHOICE, COMPLETES THE WORK PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION, IT MAY USE OR PERMIT ANY SUCH TRADE CONTRACTOR TO USE ALL MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT OF TRADE CONTRACTOR ON THE SITE ON THE DATE OF GIVING SUCH NOTICE. (Exhibit 1.) In connection with the request for default judgment, Cross-Complainants provided proof that JCL failed to remedy defective workmanship it performed. Therefore, Cross-Complainants are generally entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys fees as the prevailing parties in the action. In support of the request, Cross-Complainants have provided the attorney declarations of David S. Lee and David T. Pursiano, along with invoices, demonstrating that Pursiano Law, LLP incurred $49,845.90 in attorneys fees. Cross-Complainants also request $277,822.75 in attorneys fees for Lee, Landrum & Ingle, but the Declaration of David S. Lee and attached invoices only add up to $277,522.75 in attorneys fees. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Cross-Complainants motion for attorneys fees in the amount of $49,845.90 for Pursiano Law, LLP and $277,522.75 for Lee, Landrum & Ingle. Further, the Court will incorporate the attorneys fees award into the final Default Judgment entered against JCL. DATED: August 27, 2024 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court