Khoury v. Pasaca Capital, Inc., et al.

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP Sec. 436, subds. (a), (b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 ["Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded"].)

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud, or oppression. (Civ. Code, Sec. 3294, subd. (a).) "Malice" is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) "Oppression" means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person's rights. (Ibid.) "Fraud" is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.)

Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

Defendants move to strike the requests for, and references to, punitive and exemplary damages on grounds that Plaintiff fails to allege any malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct on the part of Defendants. (Mot., p. 8:9-17.) The FAC alleges that Defendants made false representations to Plaintiff in order to induce Plaintiff to transfer ownership of the airplane to Defendants and execute a promissory note and security agreement in the amount of $1,950,000.00. (FAC, P.P. 15-18.) The FAC alleges that instead of selling the airplane as promised, Defendants used the airplane for their own benefit, incurred and charged expenses related to the aircraft, obtained a loan secured by the aircraft, and used the loan proceeds for their own benefit. (FAC, P.P. 20-23.)

The FAC further alleges that Defendants ultimately sold the airplane but have failed and refused to distribute any portion of the proceeds to Plaintiff, refused to make any payment toward the note, and have failed to make the agreed upon charitable contribution. (FAC, P.P. 25-28.) These allegations, if proven true, would constitute sufficiently malicious and fraudulent conduct to support the imposition of punitive damages. Thus, the motion to strike is DENIED.

RULING: Defendants David Leon Stanton and Associated Entertainment Releasing, dba Associated Television International's Demurrer is OVERRULED. The Motion to Strike is DENIED. Defendants are to file an Answer within 10 days of this order.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE VIDEO APPEARANCES

If you wish to appear remotely on LACourtConnect, you may register by visiting www.lacourt.ca.gov to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.

Case Number: 26NNCV03074 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: D TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 6 Date: August 21, 2026 Case No: 26NNCV03074 Trial Date: Not yet set Case Name: Khoury v. Pasaca Capital, Inc., et al.

APPLICATION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE [CRC rule 9.40] Moving Party: Plaintiff, Najib Khoury Responding Party: Defendants, Pasaca Capital, Inc. et al [Unopposed]

RELIEF REQUESTED: Order permitting Vincenza Castiglione to appear in this action and be admitted to the bar of this Court pro hac vice.

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Complaint 1) Breach of Contract 2) Fraudulent Misrepresentation 3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4) Constructive Wrongful Termination 5) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA

SUMMARY OF FACTS: Plaintiff Najib Khoury ("Plaintiff") alleges that in 2021 he was hired as the Chief Executive Officer for Middle East and North Africa operations for Innova Medical Group ("Innova"). Innova is a subsidiary of Pasaca Capital, Inc. ("Pasaca"). Defendant Charles Huang ("Huang") is the co-founder, co-chairman and CEO of Pasaca. Defendant Lina Tullberg ("Tullberg") is the co-chairman of Innova and/or Pasaca. Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment, he was subjected to a toxic, hostile and unsafe work environment orchestrated by Huang, with the active participation and enablement of Tullberg.

Plaintiff alleges that Huang engaged in multiple extramarital affairs with married female employees, and that Huang facilitated these relationships. The Complaint alleges that these affairs created severe workplace disruptions and safety risks. Plaintiff alleges that Huang falsely represented that a female employee had embezzled money from the company and induced Plaintiff to locate her. The Complaint further alleges that Huang exhibited racial bias favoring Chinese hires, which created a discriminatory environment.

Plaintiff resigned in May 2024.

ANALYSIS: California Rules of Court ("CRC") rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by way of written application upon due notice to all interested parties, as well as service on the State Bar in San Francisco with payment of the appropriate fee, provided that the attorney (a) is not a California resident, (b) does not work in California, and (c) does not perform regular or substantial business, professional or other activities in California.

An application for pro hac vice admission must set forth: (1) the applicant attorney's residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant attorney has been admitted and dates of admission; (3) a representation that the attorney applicant is a member in good standing in the courts of admission and is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (4) the title of each court and action in which the applicant attorney has appeared pro hac vice in this State in the prior two years; and (5) the name, address and phone number of the active California State Bar member with whom the applicant is associated. (CRC, rule 9.40(d).)

Upon review, the Court finds that Castiglione has established that he satisfied the requirements to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to CRC rule 9.40. The Application sets forth (1) the applicant attorney's residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant attorney has been admitted and dates of admission; (3) a representation that the attorney applicant is a member in good standing in the courts of admission and is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (4) the title of each court and action in which the applicant attorney has appeared pro hac vice in California in the prior two years; and (5) the name, address and phone number of the active California State Bar member with whom the applicant is associated. (Application, P.P. 2-11.)

The Application has been served on the State Bar in San Francisco with payment of the applicable fees. (Application, P.P. 11-12.) Accordingly, the paperwork is in order and the Application is GRANTED.

RULING: The Verified Application of Vincenza Castiglione to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE VIDEO APPEARANCES

If you wish to appear remotely on LACourtConnect, you may register by visiting www.lacourt.ca.gov to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.

Case Number: 26NNCV03848 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: D TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 10 Date: August 21, 2026 Case No: 26NNCV03848 Trial Date: Not yet set Case Name: Highview Holdings LLC v. Bu, et al.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [CCP Sec.Sec. 526, 527] Moving Party: Plaintiff, Highview Holdings LLC Responding Party: Defendants, Ningning Li and Le Bu [Unopposed] Deficiencies to Note: No service on Defendants. Plaintiff served Defendants with the summons and Complaint via publication, but the Complaint does not request injunctive relief and the motion for preliminary injunction was not served in accordance with CRC rule 3.1150.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order enjoining Defendants from selling the real property located at 325 West Bellevue Drive, Pasadena, California 91105, APN 5713-032-009.

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Complaint 1) Quiet Title 2) Cancellation of Instruments 3) Fraud and Deceit 4) Civil Conspiracy 5) Imposition of Constructive Trust 6) Conversion 7) Violation of Penal Code Sec. 496--Receiving Stolen Property 8) Declaratory Relief

SUMMARY OF FACTS: Highview Holdings, LLC ("Plaintiff" of "Highview") is the lawful owner of real property located at 325 West Bellevue Drive in Pasadena, California 91105 (the "Property"). Plaintiff alleges that on March 10, 2026, defendant Ningning Li ("Li") filed a false and fraudulent Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State, falsely designating Li as the manager of Highview Holdings, LLC. The Complaint alleges that Li executed one or more instruments, including a grant deed or transfer deed, purporting to convey the Property from Highview to defendant Le Bu ("Bu").

The deed was recorded on April 23, 2026. The Complaint alleges that the purported transaction from Li to Bu was conducted entirely off the open market, without any public listing, competitive bidding process, independent appraisal, real estate broker representation, or any of the customary safeguards that attend legitimate arm's-length real property transactions. In addition, the purported purchase price paid by Bu was approximately $4,800,000, $300,000 less than Plaintiff had paid for the Property in August 2025.

Plaintiff first discovered that the Property had been wrongfully conveyed on May 13, 2026, when Plaintiff's representatives noticed that the Property had been publicly listed for sale for $5,280,000. Prior to that date, Plaintiff had no knowledge of, and had not consented to, any conveyance, listing, or other disposition of the Property.

ANALYSIS: "No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party." (CCP Sec. 527, subd. (a).) "A party requesting a preliminary injunction may give notice of the request to the opposing or responding party either by serving a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 or by obtaining and serving an order to show cause (OSC). An OSC must be used when a temporary restraining order (TRO) is sought, or if the party against whom the preliminary injunction is sought has not appeared in the action. If the responding party