Pacific Carpets v. Shanghai Commercial Bank CA4/3

Filed 11/20/25 Pacific Carpets v. Shanghai Commercial Bank CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PACIFIC CARPETS, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063689

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022- 01245791) SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK, LTD., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed. Lanak & Hanna and Mac W. Cabal for Plaintiff and Appellant. Pierce Kavcioglu Espinosa & Cesar, Tyler J. Cesar, Armenak Kavcioglu, and Aren Kavcioglu for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Plaintiff Pacific Carpets, LLC (the LLC) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Shanghai Commercial Bank, Ltd. (the Bank). The court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by other defendants and held the LLC’s entire complaint was barred. On appeal, the LLC contends the court erred by entering judgment for the Bank because it did not file its own summary judgment motion. We conclude the court did not err and affirm the judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. THE PARTIES AND UNDERLYING DISPUTE The LLC is a subcontractor that performed work on an apartment construction project. The Bank was the construction lender on the project. After a payment dispute arose between the LLC and the property owner, the LLC recorded a mechanic’s lien against the property and served a bonded stop payment notice on the Bank. II. THE COMPLAINT AND CROSS-COMPLAINT The LLC later filed a complaint against the Bank and four other entities, which are not parties to this appeal. The complaint alleged the four entity defendants owed over $500,000 to the LLC for its work, labor, and materials. The complaint also alleged a single cause of action against the Bank to enforce the bonded stop payment notice. In response, one of the entity defendants, 2525 Main Apartment, LP (2525 Main), filed a cross-complaint and asserted causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) recovery of compensation paid to an unlicensed