Lawrence v. Chang

to as the JWF first and second contracts and Palisade first contract were not adequately pled. Plaintiff has also not pled any independent wrongfulness on the part of Defendants.

The economic loss rule (“ELR”) does not apply to an interference COA as Plaintiffs are not alleging damages for interference of any contracts between Plaintiffs and Defendants (where the ELR would apply), but rather interference with contract between Plaintiffs and third-party (where ELR does not apply)

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with one final leave to amend.

COA No. 7 – Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage

“Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage has five elements: (1) the existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm proximately caused by the defendant's action.” (Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. Am. Asphalt S., Inc. (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 505, 512.)

The same analysis as COA No. 6 applies here.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with one final leave to amend.

Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended complaint within 15 days of written notice of the ruling.

Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to October 16, 2026 at 9.30 a.m.

Defendants to give notice. 4 Burke v. O/C Benwith Capital Partners, LLC 5 Lawrence v. The motion of plaintiff/cross-defendant, Robert D. Lawrence Chang (Lawrence) for an order fixing amount of appeal bond is GRANTED IN PART.

Lawrence moves for an order fixing the amount of the bond to be given to stay enforcement pending appeal of the Interlocutory Judgment for Partition by Sale entered on February 9, 2026, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 917.4.

As an initial matter, Lawrence cites no authority that would permit the Court to allow Lawrence to use the equity in the subject property in lieu of filing an undertaking as required by section 917.4. The Court therefore declines to do so.

The Court will set the undertaking in the sum of $25,000. This represents a “use and occupancy” component comprised of a $4,000 monthly rental figure for a one-year appeal period limited to defendant/cross-complainant, Stephanie Chang’s (Chang) 50% proportional interest in the subject property, plus a nominal amount of $1,000 for the waste component as the Court finds there is very little risk of waste here. The undertaking is subject to increase if the appeal remains pending longer than one year. Lawrence is ordered to keep mortgage payments, taxes, utilities, and insurance on the subject property current and to provide monthly proof of payment thereof to Chang’s counsel.

Counsel for Lawrence shall submit a proposed order in accordance with this ruling.

Status Conference set for this date is OFF-CALENDAR.

Counsel for Lawrence shall give notice. 6 Farrow v. The motion to stay proceedings filed by defendants Kelly Goulis, Goulis Chander Burgos, and Rohit Chauhan (collectively, Defendants) is GRANTED.

Defendants move to stay this proceeding pending resolution of the related probate matter, In the Matter of the Elizabeth Thermos 1998 Trust, as Amended and Restated, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STPB12506, involving plaintiff Maria Farrow, as Trustee of the Elizabeth Thermos 1998 Trust dated May 21, 1998, as amended and restated (Plaintiff) and defendant Kelly Goulis.

“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a) [“Every court shall have the power . . . (3) [t]o provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it . . . [and] (8) [t]o amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.”].)

“When an action is brought in a court of this state involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court. In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.” (Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215.)

The Court finds a stay of the instant action pending resolution of the probate proceeding warranted to avoid inconsistent rulings and to