ROSIE AND BLUE INVESTMENTS, LLC vs OPUS ESCROW, et al.

him. The generalized allegations that the corporate fraud was committed "by and through" Shayan and Bahman do not distinguish their respective knowledge, representations, omissions, or participation. (FAC, P. 148.) Because fraud must be pleaded against each defendant specifically, the allegations are insufficient in their present form. Accordingly, the demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED as to Shayan and Bahman.

Sixth Cause of Action Defendants correctly observe that section 7068.1 does not require an officer personally to supervise every construction site or perform every listed supervisory activity. But the First Amended Complaint alleges a complete failure to exercise supervision or control, not merely Bahman's absence from the jobsite. Whether Bahman exercised another statutorily permissible form of supervision, whether any breach caused Plaintiffs' damages, and whether the evidence ultimately supports personal liability present factual questions that cannot be resolved on demurrer. The Court therefore concludes that the Sixth Cause of Action sufficiently alleges an individual duty, breach, causation, and damage for pleading purposes. The demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED. Court is to give notice.

INVESTMENTS, LLC vs OPUS ESCROW, et al. As the bankruptcy of Defendant Opus remains pending, the Court continues the Order to Show Cause hearing to November 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X. The parties are invited to submit briefing on the issue of the Court's authority to sign the order for good faith settlement while the bankruptcy stay is in effect. Any briefing on this issue should be submitted five court days prior to the continued OSC hearing. Court is to give notice. Case Number: 25NNCV03653 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: X

#20 - AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs AIDA SHORVOGHLIAN, et al. Summary judgment is GRANTED for $247,539.84 and recoverable costs, without additional prejudgment interest. Plaintiff has not established a separate amount of additional prejudgment interest beyond the balance owed. Plaintiff has adequately authenticated the Cardmember Agreement and account statements for purposes of this motion. The declaration identifies the records, explains how and when they were created, describes their maintenance in the ordinary course of business, and addresses the reliability of American Express's computerized systems.

The evidence establishes a written Cardmember Agreement governing the account, Defendants' acceptance through use of the account, and Plaintiff's extension of credit. A credit-card collection action based on the cardholder's contractual obligation to pay is properly treated as an action for breach of the cardmember agreement. (See Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 971.)