Ahern v. Property Management Associates, Inc. CA2/7

Filed 5/10/22 Ahern v. Property Management Associates, Inc. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THOMAS AHERN, B309773

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC578510) v.

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel J. Buckley, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward and Eric V. Anderton for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Gary J. Lorch and Elizabeth B. Vanalek for Defendants and Respondents Property Management Associates, Inc., Thomas Spear and Joshua Fein. __________________________ The superior court granted the petition filed by Property Management Associations, Inc. (PMA), Thomas Spear and Joshua Fein (collectively PMA parties) to confirm an arbitration award dismissing the investment fraud claims of Thomas Ahern, individually and as surviving spouse and successor in interest to Priscilla Ahern, as barred by governing statutes of limitations; denied Ahern’s petition to vacate or correct the award; and entered judgment in favor of the PMA parties on October 16, 2020. The arbitration was conducted pursuant to the arbitration provision in a cotenancy agreement between BH & Sons, LLC, on the one hand, and tenant in common investors who had purchased interests in improved real property in San Diego (the Aerovault property), on the other hand. On appeal Ahern argues, among other contentions, arbitration should not have been compelled because his fraud and related claims based on acquisition of a tenant in common interest in the Aerovault property were outside the scope of the cotenancy agreement’s arbitration provisions. We addressed this precise issue in Ahern v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 675 (Ahern 2022), in which Ahern’s investment fraud claims against BH & Sons and related individuals and entities arising from the purchase of a tenant in common interest in improved real property in Anaheim (the Amlap property) had been ordered to arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the cotenancy agreement for the Amlap property. The cotenancy agreements