Belle Rose Claremont, LLC VS Fried

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as to the First Cause of Action for for violation of the JCFEO, as well as to each of the three other causes of action against which it was asserted. The evidence did not support granting the motion as to any of the causes of action asserted. CCP sec. 631.8(b). As to Davis's liability in his individual capacity, the Court finds none.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court is persuaded by Cross-Complainant Karle Fried's arguments seeking to amend the judgment to impose personal liability against Cross-Defendant Steve Davis.

Despite being a member of the LLCs, the Court's March 10 Order describes "wrongful conduct" that Davis "authorize[d[, direct[ed], or in some meaningful sense actively participate[d] in . . . ." Frances T. v. Vill. Green Owners Assn., 42 Cal. 3d 490, 504 (1986) (internal citations omitted) - including Davis was a 50% owner of the LLCs (along with one other 50% owner) (March 10 Order at 5); Davis discussed "incentivizing current tenants to vacate their units with his realtor (March 10 Order at 5); Davis signed the October 18 notice of rent increase as a member of LLC (March 10 Order at 10); the LLCs violated the JCFEO and TPO by influencing or attempting to influence Fried to vacate through intimidation or coercion (March 10 Order at 11-12); the notice of rent increase and letter to Fried's parents were done to intimidate and/or coerce Fried to leave her cottage - and Davis and Personett understood from Fried that Fried never wanted to move out of her cottage (March 10 Order at 11); Davis did not do any legal analysis with respect to the notice of rent increase - despite signing it - but there was no legal basis to serve the October 18 notice (March 10 Order at 13); the LLCs through Davis (and his agent Flowers and/or Personnett) understood Fried's tenancy situation and knowingly included information in the October 17 letter and served the October 18 notice of rent increase (despite repeated statements of RAP applicability and a separate, recent rent increase) (March 10 Order at 13); and Davis (and Personett) had knowledge about Oakland's Determination concluding that there were two legal units on Fried's parcel (making the RAP applicable) but neither Davis nor Personett amended the LLCs' response to Fried's petition to reflect the (correct) number of legal units on the Property (March 10 Order at 13).

This conduct, collectively, violates the JCFEO and TPO (constituting wrongful attempts to "recover possession" of a rental unit and tenant harassment - which includes fraud, intimidation and/or coercion). "Directors are jointly liable with the corporation and may be joined as defendants if they personally directed or participated in the tortious conduct." Frances T., 42

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG18898140: Belle Rose Claremont, LLC VS Fried 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Karle Fried (Cross- Complainant) CRS# 191824223642 in Department 520 Cal. 3d at 504. Violations of the JCFEO and TPO, as well as breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and negligence, all involve underlying tortious conduct. (March 10 Order at 10-14). Although Davis acted on behalf of the LLC as the Court found in its March 10 Order, "[d]irectors are liable to third persons injured by their own tortious conduct regardless of whether they acted on behalf of the corporation and regardless of whether the corporation is also liable." Frances T., 42 Cal. 3d at 504.

Further, Davis, as a 50% owner and one of two members of the LLCs, is not a "subordinate agents of the corporation; rather, [his] role is as [his] title suggests: [he is a] policy-makers who direct[s] and ultimately control[s] corporate conduct. Unlike ordinary employees or other subordinate agents under their control, a corporate officer is under no compulsion to take action unreasonably injurious to third parties. But like any other employee, directors individually owe a duty of care, independent of the corporate entity's own duty, to refrain from acting in a manner that creates an unreasonable risk of personal injury to third parties.

The reason for this rule is that otherwise, a director could inflict injuries upon others and then escape liability behind the shield of his or her representative character, even though the corporation might be insolvent or irresponsible." Frances T., 42 Cal. 3d at 505.

As Fried argues in the motion to amend judgment, the March 10 Order finds that Davis "specifically authorized, directed or participated in the allegedly tortious conduct" and although he "specifically knew or reasonably should have known that some hazardous condition or activity under their control could injure plaintiff," Davis negligently failed to take or order appropriate action to avoid the harm to Fried. Frances T., 42 Cal. 3d at 508–09. Current statutory law also supports this finding. Cross-Defendants do not dispute the relevance of California Corporations Code section 17703.04(b) and (c) - only its application to this case. Nonetheless, the Court agrees that it (and supporting case law) is applicable and, for that reason, amends the judgment accordingly.

The Court will conform and sign the proposed judgment submitted.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on August 14, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on August 13, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG18898140: Belle Rose Claremont, LLC VS Fried 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Karle Fried (Cross- Complainant) CRS# 191824223642 in Department 520 to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.