Zuma Bay Villas Association v. ADCO South Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 517) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT 517 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

grant in full the motion for summary adjudication of Zuma Bay Villas Association on its cross-claims against ADCO South Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc. The Court will set forth the basis for this tentative ruling at the hearing on the motion this morning. Case Number: 25STCV11891 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 517

Plaintiff Avraham Hassid ("Hassid") sued his business partners in Defendant 2079 15th Street, LLC ("the LLC"). The partners are: Defendants Goel Sohmekh ("Goel"), David Sohmekh ("David"), and Rahel Sohmekh ("Rahel") (collectively, "the Sohmekhs"). Hassid alleges that Goel requested a loan of $4,000,000.00 from him to demonstrate "proof of funds" to a third party for a building he wanted to purchase. (Complaint, P. 12.) Hassid alleges that the Sohmekhs never intended to return the money. (Id., P. 15.) In his Complaint, Hassid asserts claims against the Sohmekhs and the LLC for (1) fraud; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) conversion; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) breach of oral contract.

David cross-claimed against Hassid, the LLC, plus two other entities: Western Imperial 2000, LLC; and Malka Investments, LLC (collectively, "Cross-Defendants"). In essence, David alleges in the Cross-Complaint that the Cross-Defendants defrauded him and the LLC. In his operative First Amended Cross-Complaint ("the FACC"), David asserts cross-clams both derivatively on behalf of the LLC and individually on his own behalf. The cross-claims are as follows: (1) breach of fiduciary duty (derivative); (2) breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (derivative); (3) financial abuse of an elder (direct); (4) accounting (derivative and direct); (5) monies had and received (derivative); (6) monies had and received and breach of promise to repay loaned funds (derivative); and (7) monies had and received and breach of promise to repay loaned funds (derivative).

Pending before the Court is Hassid's demurrer to David's claim for financial elder abuse in the FACC. The Court is sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. David asserts a direct cross-claim for financial elder abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ("the Act"). The Act states that financial abuse of an elder occurs when a person or entity "[t]akes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both" or "[t]akes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70." (Welf. & Ins.

Code, Sec. 15610.30, subd. (a).) The FACC alleges that David is 79 years old, which means that he meets the definition of an "elder" in the Act. (Cross-Complaint, P. 1.) The Court previously sustained the Cross-Defendants' demurrer to David's direct elder