SF Properties, LLC v. Smith CA2/2

Filed 7/22/15 SF Properties, LLC v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SF PROPERTIES, LLC, B257201

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC465314) v.

KEITH B. SMITH et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Laura A. Matz, Judge. Affirmed.

Schock & Schock and John P. Schock for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Attlesey / Storm and Suzanne S. Storm; Christopher L. Blank, for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff and appellant SF Properties, LLC (plaintiff) appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Keith B. Smith, an individual and as trustee of the Smith Family Trust; Lawrence Goelman, an individual and as trustee of the Lawrence Goelman Trust; and Warren Lortie, an individual and as trustee of the Lortie Trust and the Lortie Community Property Trust (collectively, defendants) after the trial court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff’s action. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The parties Plaintiff was the borrower in a loan transaction with Dove Street Capital Lenders, LLC (Dove Street), an entity that was in the business of making short term loans to borrowers who did not qualify for financing through traditional lenders. Defendants are the current and former members of Dove Street. The underlying loan transaction In March 2005, Dove Street loaned plaintiff $3.64 million (the loan). The loan was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust covering several parcels of real property in Glendale, California. The note specified an interest rate of 12 percent and a default rate of 25 percent. At the time the loan was made, Dove Street was not a licensed real estate broker or finance lender. It therefore required the loan to be arranged by a broker pursuant to Civil Code section 1916.1 in order to invoke the broker’s exemption from the interest rate limitation imposed by article XV, section 1 of the California Constitution.1