Ressler v. Piontak CA2/8 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 5/31/22 Ressler v. Piontak CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
    JAMES RESSLER et al.,                                         B312694
    Plaintiffs and Appellants,                              (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. 21STCV04261)
    v.
    LENNY PIONTAK et al.,
    Defendants and Respondents.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed.
    Benice Law and Jeffrey S. Benice for Plaintiffs and
    Appellants.
    Buchalter, Robert M. Dato and Russell L. Allyn for
    Defendants and Respondents.
    _____________________________
    This appeal is from the judgment entered after the
    sustaining of an unopposed demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiffs
    James Ressler and Lauren Karp, and defendant Lenny Piontak
    were shareholders of a corporation, Luxe West, Inc. Defendant
    Michelle Sivertsen is Mr. Piontak’s daughter and was employed
    by the business. Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging they
    plundered business assets and failed to pay taxes. Defendants
    demurred, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing to make derivative
    claims belonging to the corporation, among other arguments.
    Plaintiffs did not oppose the demurrer, but filed a first amended
    complaint after the deadline to file their opposition to the
    demurrer. The trial court rejected the untimely first amended
    complaint for filing and sustained the unopposed demurrer
    without leave to amend. We affirm.
    FACTS
    On June 2, 2020, plaintiffs filed their complaint against
    defendants, alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty,
    accounting, declaratory relief, and indemnity. Plaintiffs alleged
    Mr. Piontak invested in Luxe West, Inc., in exchange for a 33 1/3
    percent share of the business. Mr. Piontak hired his daughter,
    Ms. Sivertsen, to work as the corporation’s controller and director
    of operations. Defendants allegedly plundered the business, sold
    all of its inventory, and failed to pay more than $400,000 in
    payroll taxes, for which plaintiffs allege they are liable as
    shareholders of the business. Plaintiffs did not allege they had
    caused the taxes to be paid, or that any enforcement action had
    been taken against them.
    On March 8, 2021, defendants demurred, arguing plaintiffs
    lacked standing to make derivative claims belonging to the
    corporation. Defendants also argued plaintiffs were judicially
    2
    estopped from asserting their claims because plaintiffs did not
    disclose the claims in their bankruptcy. Defendants further
    argued they could not be liable for breach of fiduciary duty
    because they were not corporate officers, and any claim regarding
    taxes was not ripe, because the taxes had not been paid. The
    demurrer was calendared for hearing on April 9, 2021.
    Plaintiffs did not oppose the demurrer. Instead, they tried
    to file a first amended complaint on March 29, 2021, eight court
    days before the hearing on the demurrer. The first amended
    complaint included new allegations that Mr. Piontak was an
    officer of the corporation, and signed documents as its chief
    financial officer.
    On March 30, 2021, the trial court entered a minute order
    rejecting the first amended complaint for filing, finding it was
    untimely. At the hearing on the demurrer, the trial court
    sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding the
    demurrer was “well taken” and “unopposed” and that the court
    had rejected the first amended complaint for filing because it was
    untimely. The court entered a judgment of dismissal that same
    day. Plaintiffs timely appealed.
    DISCUSSION
    Plaintiffs acknowledge their first amended complaint was
    filed late. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 472 [“A party may amend its
    pleading once without leave of the court . . . after a demurrer . . .
    is filed but before the demurrer . . . is heard if the amended
    pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an
    opposition to the demurrer . . . ”]; 1005 [motion opposition papers
    are due nine court days before the hearing].) However, they argue
    the trial court erred when it rejected the first amended complaint
    for filing, based on their faulty reasoning that California Rules of
    3
    Court, rule 3.1300, which relates to the filing and service of
    motion papers, provides that “[n]o paper may be rejected for filing
    on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the
    court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the
    minutes or order must so indicate.” (Rule 3.1300(d).) Plaintiffs
    also argue the court prejudicially erred by failing to state in its
    minute order that it was exercising its discretion to not consider
    the late-filed amended complaint. We are not persuaded.
    Rule 3.1300 is in title 3, division 11 of the California Rules
    of Court, which relates to law and motion matters in civil
    proceedings. This rule clearly does not divest a court of its
    inherent authority to reject a late-filed amended pleading. (Loser
    v. E. R. Bacon Co. (1962) 
    201 Cal.App.2d 387
    , 390 [“[a] court may,
    by virtue of its inherent power to prevent abuse of its processes,
    strike an amended complaint which is filed in disregard of
    established procedural processes”].)
    Plaintiffs also argue the court abused its discretion by not
    granting leave to amend, claiming the amended pleading
    corrected the deficiencies in the original complaint.
    “Where the appellant offers no allegations to support the
    possibility of amendment and no legal authority showing the
    viability of new causes of action, there is no basis for finding the
    trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the demurrer
    without leave to amend.” (Rakestraw v. California Physicians’
    Service (2000) 
    81 Cal.App.4th 39
    , 43–44, citations omitted.)
    The demurrer correctly asserted plaintiffs’ claims belonged
    to the corporation and not to plaintiffs. (Grosset v. Wenaas (2008)
    
    42 Cal.4th 1100
    , 1108 [“Because a corporation exists as a separate
    legal entity, the shareholders have no direct cause of action or
    right of recovery against those who have harmed it.”]; Oakland
    4
    Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 
    131 Cal.App.4th 621
    ,
    651 [breach of fiduciary duty claim for corporate mismanagement
    and diverting corporate assets was derivative].) Plaintiffs’
    appellate brief does not discuss any facts to support the possibility
    of amendment or legal theories supporting the viability of new
    causes of action.
    Defendants point out that, when the court rejected for filing
    the first amended complaint, there were still several days before
    the hearing on the demurrer during which plaintiffs could have
    asked the court for permission to file a late opposition to the
    demurrer or an amended complaint, or asked defendants to
    stipulate to more time. Having failed to comply with available
    procedures, plaintiffs have not demonstrated the court abused its
    discretion.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed. Respondents may recover their
    costs on appeal.
    GRIMES, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    STRATTON, P. J.
    WILEY, J.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B312694

Filed Date: 5/31/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/1/2022