Kostiv & Associates v. Sejudo Padilla CA2/4

Filed 8/22/25 Kostiv & Associates v. Sejudo Padilla CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

KOSTIV & ASSOCIATES, APLC, B340973

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV45709 ELENA ESTHER SEJUDO PADILLA et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel S. Murphy, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Ashton Watkins and Ashton R. Watkins for Defendants and Appellants. Law Office of A. George Glasco and A. George Glasco for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellants and defendants Crystal Jewelry Trends, LLC (Crystal Jewelry), Diego Gonzalez, and Elena Esther Sejudo Padilla appeal a judgment entered against them and in favor of plaintiff and respondent Kostiv & Associates, APLC (Kostiv). Defendants contend the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting Gonzalez and Padilla from testifying remotely at trial. They also argue that the trial court erroneously ruled on Kostiv’s cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty because the claim was dismissed before trial. Lastly defendants argue there was no substantial evidence to support the court’s ruling in Kostiv’s favor on its conversion cause of action. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Gonzalez began working for Kostiv in 2016 and served as its finance director from 2017 to the end of his employment in December 2021. From July 2016 to May 2017, Padilla also worked for Kostiv. Padilla owns Crystal Jewelry and is involved in a romantic relationship with Gonzalez, which they did not disclose to Kostiv. The operative first amended complaint originally asserted 14 causes of action against numerous defendants. Relevant to this appeal, the complaint alleges that, between January 2020 and October 2021, Crystal Jewelry repeatedly billed Kostiv for services it did not provide. Without Kostiv’s consent, the complaint alleges, Gonzalez and Padilla charged two of Kostiv’s debit cards to pay these bills. According to the complaint, Gonzalez omitted the charges from Kostiv’s financial reports and conspired with Padilla to embezzle the funds Kostiv paid to Crystal Jewelry.