Banuelos v. 218 Properties CA2/3 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Banuelos v. 218 Properties CA2/3
California Court of Appeal Sep 3, 2013 No. B241645Unpublished
Filed 9/3/13 Banuelos v. 218 Properties CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
ROSA BANUELOS, B241645
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TC024502) v.
218 PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Allen J. Webster, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Spix & Martin, Richard L. Spix and D. Elizabeth Martin for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Douglas W. Beck & Associates and Douglas W. Beck; Klinedinst
and Gregory A. Garbacz for Defendants and Respondents, 218 Properties, LLC,
LA Investment, LLC, R22, Inc., dba Star Management and Peter Starflinger.
_______________________________________
Plaintiff Rosa Banuelos appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court
granted summary judgment for defendants 218 Properties, LLC (218 Properties),
LA Investment, LLC (LA Investment), R22, Inc. (R22), doing business as Star
Management, and Peter Starflinger (Starflinger) (collectively, defendants). Plaintiff
contends that the trial court erred in (1) sustaining defendants‟ demurrer to her causes of
action for declaratory and injunctive relief, retaliation and bad faith, (2) granting
defendants‟ motion to strike the complaint‟s alter ego allegations, and (3) granting
summary judgment as to her remaining causes of action. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Sale of Plaintiff’s Mobile Home
On June 26, 2010, plaintiff entered into a contract (Contract) to sell her mobile
home in Park Granada Trailer Lodge (Park Granada) to Rosa Rodriguez (Rodriguez) for
$55,000. 218 Properties owns Park Granada and LA Investment owns 100% of the
membership interest in 218 Properties. R22 is the property manager for Park Granada
and Starflinger is R22‟s agent.
On June 28, 2010, Rodriguez submitted an application for residency at Park
Granada as a potential purchaser of plaintiff‟s mobile home. The application included
paystubs showing monthly gross income of $4,000, however, Rodriguez‟s credit report
showed that she owed $5,112 per month in loan payments. On July 2, 2010, counsel for
218 Properties wrote Rodriguez asking for the following additional information in
support of her application: (1) a schedule of her real estate; (2) a copy of the most
recent mortgage statement for each of her mortgage loans; (3) a schedule of gross
2
income, expenses and net income for each rental property she owned; (4) verification of
funds to complete the purchase; and (5) a statement that Rodriguez intended to reside in
the subject mobile home.
Rodriguez did not respond to the letter and, on July 7, 2010, exercised her right
to cancel the purchase because she did not want to provide the documentation requested.
On January 10, 2011, a new buyer made an offer to purchase plaintiff‟s mobile home
for $51,000, which plaintiff accepted. R22 approved the new buyer‟s application for
residency. The sale closed on February 28, 2011.
2. The Complaint
The trial court proceedings as evidenced by the limited record before the court
were as follows.1 Plaintiff filed the complaint in the underlying action on July 20, 2010.
Plaintiff has not included a copy of the complaint in the record, therefore, its allegations
are unknown. 218 Properties and LA Investment raised a demurrer to the first through
eighth causes of action. The court sustained the demurrer as to the causes of action for
declaratory and injunctive relief, “statutory violations,” intentional interference with
contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and negligence. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend except as to the
negligence claim. The court overruled the demurrer as to the causes of action for
1 Plaintiff‟s index selectively represents the record to the court. It is the appellant‟s burden to provide an adequate record on appeal. (Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794.) To the extent the record is inadequate, we make all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. (Ibid.)
3
intentional interference with economic advantage and negligent interference with
economic advantage.
Plaintiff amended her complaint. The first amended complaint is also not
included in the record. Defendants 218 Properties and LA Investment demurred.
Defendants R22 and Starflinger demurred separately. The court sustained both
demurrers as to the causes of action for declaratory relief and “statutory violations” with
leave to amend. The court also sustained R22 and Starflinger‟s demurrer to the causes
of action for intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with
economic advantage, and negligent interference with economic advantage without leave
to amend on the grounds that the complaint alleged that R22 and Starflinger were only
acting in their capacity as agents for 218 Properties and LA Investment.
Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint on January 7, 2011 in which she
alleged that defendants‟ refusal to approve the transfer of her lease to Rodriguez without
section 798.74 by asking for “years of cash flow analysis for each rental property owned
by the purchaser [Rodriguez];” (2) the evidence “in this action” established each of the
elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contract; (3) “intentional
interference with economic advantage is contained within the evidence;” (4) “negligent
11
interference with economic relations is established” because the defendants owed
plaintiff a duty of care under Civil Code section 798.74; and (5) “intentional infliction
of emotional distress is supported by substantial evidence” because there was evidence
that Starflinger “intended his actions to harm plaintiff” knowing of “plaintiff‟s prior
heart attack which predictably caused severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.”
Plaintiff‟s arguments improperly rely on evidence to which objections were
sustained. However, plaintiff does not challenge the court‟s rulings sustaining
defendants‟ objections to this evidence. As a result, any issues concerning the
correctness of the court‟s evidentiary rulings have been waived and we consider all such
evidence to have been properly excluded. (Lopez v. Baca (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1008,
1014-1015.)
In addition, plaintiff does not address the numerous alternate bases for the trial
court‟s rulings, including the court‟s conclusion that her separate statement was
deficient and that LA Investment was not liable for the acts of 218 Properties.3
Therefore, plaintiff has failed to show that summary judgment was improper and we
need not address the select arguments she does raise.
3 Plaintiff made a motion for relief from default “as to the issue of compliance with Separate Statement requirements” which we have denied. Plaintiff‟s attempt to address this issue for the first time in her reply is also inadequate. (Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764 [“ „[p]oints raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered, because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument.‟ [Citation.]”].)
12
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The defendants shall recover their costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CROSKEY, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KITCHING, J.
ALDRICH, J.
13
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of claims, finding that the defendants' requests for financial documentation from a prospective mobile home purchaser were objectively reasonable under Civil Code section 798.74 and that the plaintiff failed to establish triable issues of fact or adequately plead her claims.
Issues
Did the trial court err in sustaining demurrers to the plaintiff's causes of action for retaliation and bad faith?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in striking the plaintiff's alter ego allegations?
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendants on the remaining causes of action?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the defendants were well within their rights in demanding that the prospective purchaser located by plaintiff provide satisfactory evidence of an ability to pay the required park rent and charges.”