Jay Bharat Developers v. Minidis CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 2014 No. B247893Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's charging order, holding that the judgment debtor was barred by the doctrine of invited error from challenging the commissioner's authority, and that the nonparty LLCs lacked standing to object to the order.

Issues

Whether the trial court's charging order must be reversed due to the lack of a stipulation for a commissioner to hear the motion.
Whether the judgment debtor is barred by the doctrine of invited error from challenging the commissioner's authority.
Whether the nonparty LLCs have standing to object to the charging order or the commissioner's authority.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To the extent Morari is challenging the trial court’s order, we conclude that his argument is barred by the doctrine of invited error.”

“To the extent the nonparty LLC’s are challenging the trial court’s order, we conclude that they lack standing to object as they have no actual interest in the trial court’s order granting respondents’ amended motion.”

Filed 12/2/14 Jay Bharat Developers v. Minidis CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

JAY BHARAT DEVELOPERS, INC., B247893 et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. BC336287)

JIM MINIDIS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Matthew C. St. George, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser and Frank A. Weiser for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Leopoldo A. Bautista and Justin Barmasse for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________

This appeal is one in a series brought by Jay Bharat Developers, Inc., and related entities and individuals against RedBrick Pizza Worldwide, Inc., and its related entities and individuals. This time, appellants Jay Bharat Developers, Inc., Jay Bharat Resorts, Inc., Jay Bharat Foods, LLC (JB Foods), Jay Bharat Lodging, LLC, Vartan, LLC, and Bipin Morari (Morari) challenge a trial court order granting a motion by defendants and respondents Jim Minidis, Lynn Minidis, and RedBrick Pizza Worldwide, Inc., charging 1 Morari’s membership interest in various limited liability companies (LLC’s). They contend because there was no stipulation to have a commissioner hear respondents’ motion, the order must be reversed. We are not convinced by appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Complaint; Arbitration; Judgment for Respondents On July 8, 2005, appellants initiated litigation against respondents for damages arising out of a franchise agreement. (Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 437, 441.) Following a motion by respondents, the trial court ordered the case to arbitration. (Ibid.) Following the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found in favor of respondents and awarded them attorney fees and costs. A judgment confirming the arbitration award was filed and entered by the trial court. Appellants appealed, and on September 7, 2011, we affirmed the trial court’s order and judgment. (Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis (Sept. 7, 2011, B219498) [nonpub. opn.].)

Jay Bharat Developers v. Minidis CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief