Woods v. Simonse CA1/1

Filed 9/14/15 Woods v. Simonse CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

DAVE WOODS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A140899 v. JOHN SIMONSE et al., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C0903517) Defendants and Respondents.

The trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiffs Dave and Susan Woods and in favor of John Simonse and a number of entities related to him (collectively, the Simonse defendants) after rejecting causes of action for conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to intentionally inflict emotional distress, and declaratory relief.1 On appeal, the Woodses argue the court erred by granting the motion for summary judgment, sustaining a number of objections to evidence they submitted in opposition to it, and denying their motion for reconsideration. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2005, the Woodses lent $416,000 to Chetcuti & Associates, a company run by Benny Chetcuti. The loan was to be secured by real property owned by Chetcuti &

1 The entities are Magnate Fund #1 LLC, Magnate Fund #2 LLC, Magnate Fund #3 LLC, JWS Capital Investments, LHJS Investments, 27th Street Associates LLC, South Van Ness Associates LLC, 20 Parkridge LLC, and 55 Woodward LLC.

1

Associates, but the deed of trust prepared in 2005 identified no specific property and was not recorded. Chetcuti later told the Woodses that a property on Woodward Street in San Francisco (the Woodward property) was the property securing the loan. In 2007 and 2008, one of Simonse’s entities, Magnate Fund #2 LLC, made loans totaling $1,539,000 to Chetcuti and some of his businesses. Those loans were secured by recorded deeds of trust on the Woodward property. In late 2009, after Chetcuti missed several payments on the Woodses’ loan, the couple demanded repayment but were told he did not have the money. Chetcuti and his companies also defaulted on one of the loans to Magnate Fund #2. Magnate Fund #2 recorded a notice of default on the Woodward property and later acquired it. Meanwhile, Chetcuti filed for bankruptcy, naming over 100 creditors. The Woodses claim that of those creditors, only Simonse and his entities received any security for their loans. The Woodses filed this lawsuit, alleging that Chetcuti had operated a Ponzi scheme with the Simonse defendants. The Woodses brought causes of action against the Simonse defendants for conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to commit conversion, conspiracy to intentionally inflict emotional distress, and declaratory relief. 2 The trial court sustained without leave to amend those defendants’ demurrer to the conversion- related claim. The Simonse defendants then moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the remaining three claims against them. The trial court granted summary judgment after it sustained various objections to evidence the Woodses submitted in opposition. The court later denied the Woodses’ motion for reconsideration, and a judgment of dismissal in the Simonse defendants’ favor was entered.