Health and Wellness Lifestyle Club v. Grove Point Investments CA4/3

Filed 12/10/25 Health and Wellness Lifestyle Club v. Grove Point Investments 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

HEALTH AND WELLNESS LIFESTYLE CLUB, LLC, G064375 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- v. 01358654)

GROVE POINT INVESTMENTS, OPINION LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Layne H. Melzer, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to strike denied. Nupur Nagar for Plaintiff and Appellant. D’Amura & Zaidman and Richard A. D’Amura for Defendant and Respondent Grove Point Investments, LLC. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Brittany B. Sutton, Joseph C. Campo and Daniel R. Velladao for Defendant and Respondent Carolyn Valentine.

Plaintiff Health and Wellness Lifestyle Club, LLC challenges the dismissal of its petition to vacate an arbitration award for defendants Grove Point Investments, LLC and Caroline Valentine. The court granted defendants’ motion to quash service after concluding that plaintiff had failed to serve them by the statutory deadline. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1288.)1 Plaintiff contends that (1) defendants waived service defects by making general appearances in another action, (2) service by e-mail to Valentine’s former counsel was valid based on ostensible agency, and (3) equitable estoppel or tolling excuses any service failures. We conclude the trial court properly granted the motion to quash. Defendants did not make general appearances, and any appearance in a separate action would not excuse service. Service by e-mail to Valentine’s former counsel was unauthorized. And plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct precluded application of equitable doctrines. Accordingly, we affirm.2 FACTS Plaintiff sued Valentine in Ohio over a failed transaction for the purchase of golf courses.3 A jury found for Valentine. Plaintiff then filed an arbitration claim against Valentine and Grove Point based on the same transaction. The arbitration took place in San Diego and the arbitration