The Standard Fire Insurance Company vs. Milton Roy Company, Hartell Division

Defendant Viking Range, LLC (“Defendant”) opposes the motion.

On 08/13/2026, the Court held a hearing on this motion. The Court ordered the following after the hearing:

“The Court finds that whether Mr. Lacombe signed the verification to Defendant’s discovery responses is of great significance to the issues presented in this motion. However, Plaintiff has not provided any admissible evidence that Mr. Lacombe signed a discovery verification in defense of this case. Plaintiff also did not provide admissible evidence that Mr. Lacombe appeared at destructive testing on Defendant’s behalf.

Plaintiff is ordered to file evidence establishing that Mr. Lacombe signed the verification on behalf of Defendant and any other evidence supporting Mr. Lacombe’s role and/or responsibilities in relation to Defendant no later than 9 court days before the continued hearing. Defendant is permitted to file a 3 page reply in addition to evidence opposing Plaintiff’s contentions no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.

If Plaintiff’s statement is true, that Mr. Lacombe signed the discovery verification on behalf of Defendant in defense of this case, the Court strongly encourages the parties to work together to establish a mutually agreeable date to conduct Mr. Lacombe’s deposition.” (ROA 111.)

On August 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support of the motion to compel the deposition of Michael Lacombe. In the declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel attached the discovery responses provided by Defendant, which were verified by Michael Lacombe. The Court finds that such evidence supports Plaintiff’s arguments that Defendant shall be required to produce Michael Lacombe for deposition.

As such, the motion to compel Defendant Viking Range, LLC’s representative Michael Lacombe to appear for a deposition is GRANTED. Defendant shall produce Michael Lacombe for his deposition on a mutually agreeable date, no later than 45 days following notice of this order.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $561.65 against Defendant Viking Range, LLC and Defendant Viking Range, LLC’s attorney, Sierra J. Chinn- Liu, Esq., jointly and severally. Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days after notice of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice. 109 Jafry vs. Rowshan, 23-01348716 Defendants Zoom Business Brokers (“Zoom”) and Jim Moazez (“Moazez”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seek an order granting summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication, of the Complaint against Plaintiff Syed Jafry, dba R & R Accounting (“Plaintiff”) and in favor of Defendants.

(1) The undisputed material facts show that Plaintiff cannot establish Defendants’ “intent to defraud,” an element of fraud, barring Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Fraud;

(2) The undisputed material facts show that Plaintiff cannot establish Defendants’ “justifiable reliance on defendant’s misrepresentation,” an element of fraud, barring Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Fraud; (3) The undisputed material facts show that Defendants’ Affirmative Defense No. 25, “Release, Indemnity, and Hold Harmless,” bars Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action of Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Initially, on summary adjudication, pursuant to CRC 3.1350(b), “[T]he specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” [CRC 3.1350(b).]

Here, the Notice of Motion and Separate Statement do not match verbatim. [ROA 117, 121.] Also, the separate statement does not list the issues to be adjudicated in numerical sequence; but rather, starts at number 1 for each issue. [CRC 3.1350(h).]

Nevertheless, because there are only three issues for consideration, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider each issue.

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. [Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850]

A defendant moving for summary judgment must “show” that either: • one or more elements of the “cause of action ... cannot be established”; OR • there is a complete defense to that cause of action. [CCP § 437c(p)(2)]

Here, Defendant has presented arguments and evidence that one or more elements of the cause of action for Fraud cannot be established (intent to defraud, justifiable reliance) and that there is a complete defense to the cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (25th Affirmative Defense).

As to fraud, Defendant explains that Plaintiff Jafry’s fraud allegations against Defendants Zoom and Moazez are premised on Jafry’s “approval of the loan” (Complaint, ¶¶12, 13, 24) and on the claim that Defendants were “dumping the company problems onto Plaintiff and keeping the good for the benefit of Defendants all while Plaintiff was liable for the $750,000.00 debt that was in essence a loan to Defendant.” (Id. at ¶¶15, 23).

Defendant argues that Neither Zoom nor Moazez could have intended to defraud Jafry when Zoom consistently insisted that Jafry conduct his own due diligence to verify the Seller’s representations and seek the advice of professionals. [UMF No. 10, 23.]

Defendant also argues that while Zoom’s agent, Ms. Vaziri, made the initial introduction to begin the SBA Loan application, Jafry remained solely responsible for providing the necessary information for loan approval. [UMF Nos. 13-17].

Also, as to justifiable reliance, Defendant argues that Jafry acknowledged that Zoom advised him, at minimum, six times that Zoom and its agents made no representations or warranties about the Seller’s business and encouraged Jafry to seek professional advice. (UMF No. 23).