HBA Investment LLC, et al. v. Jetty Alexis Sibrian, et al.

Based on the foregoing, there is no dispute that Defendants are entitled to take Cassandra's deposition.

The evidence establishes that Defendants repeatedly noticed Cassandra's deposition, first as a party to the action and then as a third-party witness pursuant to the agreement of counsel. The Court finds that an order compelling Cassandra to appear for her deposition on 8/28/26 is warranted despite the parties agreement that the deposition will proceed on that date.

In the event Cassandra and/or Plaintiffs' counsel fail to proceed with the deposition as agreed, such an order will allow Defendants to proceed with a motion for sanctions without the need to file another motion to compel and/or obtain an order compelling Cassandra to appear for her deposition.

Since Plaintiffs' counsel did not provide dates for Cassandra's deposition until after this motion was filed, Defendants' are entitled to sanctions for the fees and costs incurred in relation to the instant motion. CCP 2025.450(g)(1).

However, the Court finds that the amount of sanctions requested is excessive and reduces the amount to $1,860.00 for 4 hours to prepare the motion + 1 hour to review the opposition and prepare the reply + 1 hour to prepare for and appear at the hearing multiplied by $300/hour + $60 filing fee. (See Ostrovsky Decl. P.27).

As noted above, Plaintiffs' counsel has already paid the court reporter fee for the missed deposition. (See Gonzalez Decl. P.10, Ex.3).

Additionally, the Court finds that since Plaintiffs' counsel has taken responsibility for the delay in scheduling the deposition sanctions should only be imposed on Plaintiffs' counsel. (Gonzalez Decl. P.2).

CONCLUSION The motion is granted. Cassandra Fakhouri is ordered to appear for her deposition on 8/28/26. Sanctions are imposed on Plaintiffs' counsel, Law Offices of Arash Khorsandi, PC, in the amount of $1,860.00, payable within 30 days.

Date: 8/24/26 Case #25CHCV04059 DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Demurrer filed on 3/12/26. MOVING PARTY: Defendants Jetty Alexis Sibrian and Jose David Godoy RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff HBA Investment LLC NOTICE: ok Demurrer is to the 5 th cause of action: 1. Negligence 2. Breach of Contract 3. Breach of CC&Rs 4. Fraud 5. Negligent Failure to Disclose 6. Nuisance RULING: The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises out of the sale of a commercial condominium unit located at 9555 Owensmouth Avenue, Unit 5, Chatsworth, California (the Property) by Defendants Jetty Alexis Sibrian and Jose David Godoy (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiff HBA Investment LLC (HBA) is the current owner of the Property and Plaintiff SOS Distribution LLC (SOS) occupies the Property and conducts business from the location. (Complaint P.P.8, 10).

On or about 10/7/22, Hamed Bosset-Allen entered into an Agreement and Escrow Instructions for Purchase of Real Estate (Purchase Agreement) to purchase the Property from the Godoy Sibrian Family Living Trust. (Complaint P.47). Thereafter, Hamed Bosset-Allen assigned his interest in the Purchase Agreement to HBA. (Complaint P.49).

On 10/27/22, Defendants executed grant deeds transferring title to the Property out of their trust to themselves and subsequently transferred title to HBA. (Complaint P.P.50-51). Both grant deeds were recorded on 12/1/22. (Complaint P.52). The Purchase Agreement provided that Defendants would lease back the Property until February of 2023. (Complaint P.48).

Plaintiffs allege that they suffered damages arising from water leaks and roofing issues affecting the Property. Therefore, on 11/17/25, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants and others alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Breach of CC&Rs, (4) Fraud, (5) Negligent Failure to Disclose and Nuisance. Only the 4 th and 5 th causes of action are alleged against Defendants by HBA.

After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendants had with Plaintiffs' 5 th cause of action, on 3/12/26, Defendants filed and served the instant demurrer to the 5 th cause of action for Negligent Failure to Disclose. HBA has opposed the demurrer and Defendants have filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS Timeliness of Demurrer While CCP 430.40(a) provides that a demurrer may be filed within 30 days after service of a complaint, the Court has discretion to consider a demurrer filed beyond such deadline. See Jackson (2011) 192 CA4th 742, 749-750; McAllister (2007) 147 CA4th 253, 280-282.

Here, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the demurrer which was filed more than 30 days after service of the complaint was complete. The evidence indicates that the parties were involved in meet and confer efforts and there is no evidence that Plaintiffs suffered any prejudice by the delay in the filing of the demurrer. (See Carlson Reply Decl.).

5 th cause of action - Negligent Failure to Disclose The negligent failure to disclose cause of action falls under the 2 years statute of limitations set forth in CCP 339(1). See Hydro-Mill Co. (2004) 115 CA4th 1145, 1155; Ventura County National Bank (1996) 49 CA4th 1528, 1531.

Here, the complaint alleges that the purchase agreement for the Property was entered on 10/7/22, and that the grant deed transferring title to HBA was executed on 10/7/22 and recorded on 12/1/22 completing the transaction. As such, the alleged failure to disclose by Defendants had to have happened before 12/1/22. Therefore, the 5 th cause of action accrued no later than the close of escrow on 12/1/22.

Plaintiffs did not file this action until almost 3 years later on 11/17/25 without alleging any facts to support a finding of delayed discovery. If a complaint shows on its face that a claim may be time-barred, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading specific facts showing delayed discovery. See Fox (2005) 35 C4th 797, 808; E-Fab, Inc. (2007) 153 CA4th 1308, 1319-1320.

Even if the delayed discovery rule applied, the allegations in the complaint establish that Plaintiffs were aware that water intrusion from leaks in the roof caused damage on or about 2/24/23. (Complaint P.P.12, 32). As such, Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice on 2/24/23. See Norgart (1999) 21 C4th 383, 397-398; Jolly (1988) 44 C3d 1103, 1110-1111. However, Plaintiffs did not file their action until 11/17/25, more than 2 years later.

The argument in the opposition that "Defendants' statute of limitations argument therefore depends upon factual determinations concerning what Plaintiff knew and when Plaintiff knew it, rather than facts appearing on the face of the Complaint" is without merit. (See Opposition, p.5:21-23).

In order to rely on the delayed discovery rule, "a plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence." Fox, supra.

Here, Plaintiffs have not pled facts to support either element. Moreover, Plaintiffs have alleged that they were aware of damage caused by leaks in the roof by 2/24/23 which triggered the 2 year statute of limitations by putting Plaintiffs in inquiry notice. (Complaint P.P.12, 32); See Norgart, supra; Jolly, supra. Therefore, at the latest the statute of limitations would have expired on 2/24/25. Again, the complaint was not filed until several months later on 11/17/25.

Leave to Amend While leave to amend is normally liberally granted, a plaintiff has the burden of shown a reasonable possibility of curing the defect in the pleading. Blank (1985) 39 C3d 311, 318; Goodman (1976) 18 C3d 335, 349. A generalized request for leave to amend without any proposed supporting facts is insufficient. See Rakestraw (2000) 81 CA4th 39, 43-44.

Plaintiffs have offered no such facts in the opposition. Moreover, based on Plaintiffs allegations that damages caused by the claimed roof defects were discovered on 2/24/23, Plaintiffs cannot cure the fact that they failed to file their complaint within 2 years of such discovery which put them on inquiry notice of their claim against Defendants for negligent failure to disclose.

CONCLUSION The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. | Home -->)" -->