Victor Guzman and Juan Ascencion v. Ziba Investments Corp. et al.

(Torrance Courthouse: Dept. B) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Date: August 26, 2026 Moving Parties: Defendant Ziba Investments Corp. Responding Party: Plaintiffs Victor Guzman and Juan Ascencion Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Summary Judgment The Court considered the moving and reply papers. The Court notes that the reply appears to address plaintiffs' arguments, but no opposition shows filed on eCourt.

The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2024, Victor Guzman and Juan Ascencion filed a complaint against Ziba Investments Corp., BP America Inc., BP West Coast Products LLC, Treasure Franchise Company, BP Products North America Inc., Zhila E. Nik, trustee of The Zhila Nik Survivor's Trust, Zhila E. Nik, trustee of The Nik Marital Exempt Trust, and Zhila E. Nik, trustee of The Nik Marital Non-Exempt for (1) battery, (2) conspiracy to batter, (3) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, (4) premises liability, and (5) IIED.

On October 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed requests for dismissal as to BP West Coast Products LLC and BP America Inc.

On August 18, 2024, Treasure Franchise Company, BP Products North America Inc. and Ziba Investments Corp. filed a cross-complaint against Moes 1 through 25 for (1) equitable/implied indemnity, (2) negligence, (3) apportionment and contribution, and (4) declaratory relief.

On January 10, 2025, plaintiffs filed requests for dismissal as to Treasure Franchise Company and BP Products North America Inc.

On January 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amendment designating Bianca Enamorado as Doe 11.

On March 4, 2025, plaintiffs filed requests for dismissal as to Zhila E. Nik, as trustee of the different trusts.

On March 6, 2025, Bianca Enamorado filed a cross-complaint against Zoes 1 through 25 for (1) equitable/implied indemnity, (2) negligence, (3) apportionment and contribution, and (4) declaratory relief.

On December 8, 2025, after taking defendants' motion for summary judgment under submission, the Court denied it and granted summary adjudication with respect to the third and fifth causes of action. See order dated February 27, 2026.

On July 14, 2026, the Court denied without prejudice, defendant Ziba Investments Corp.'s second motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Under CCP Sec.437c(a)(4), "[a] party shall not bring more than one motion for summary judgment against an adverse party to the action or proceeding. This limitation does not apply to motions for summary adjudication."

Under CCP Sec.437c(a)(5), "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this section, on motion or application of any party and a showing of good cause, the court may grant leave for the moving party to bring an additional motion for summary judgment. The moving party shall serve the notice and supporting papers for any such additional motion in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)."

CCP Sec.437c(f)(2) states: "A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion."

DISCUSSION

Under CCP 437c(a)(5), defendant Ziba Investments Corp. requests leave to file a second motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs. Defendant argues that a second motion for summary judgment is appropriate because the issues are different.

Defendant asserts that as to its first motion for summary judgment, it argued that there was a lack of any evidence that defendant "Enamorado conspired with the African Americans to batter Plaintiffs by making a cell phone call to them, thereby summoning them to the AM/PM to batter Plaintiffs, and then instructing them to do so."

In contrast, defendant contends, the second motion for summary judgment addresses new issues: whether Ziba is vicariously liable for the alleged actions by Enamorado; whether it ratified the actions alleged against her; whether Enamorado was a managing agent of Ziba; and whether a managing agent of Ziba knew of her alleged wrongful conduct and ratified it.

Defendant also contends that the facts asserted in the second motion were newly discovered and completely different. Defendant further argues that, alternatively, good cause exists based on judicial economy.

No opposition was filed. In the reply, it appears that defendant is responding to plaintiff's arguments, but no opposition shows filed. Defendant reiterates its arguments that the issues are completely different although the same causes of action are sought to be adjudicated and that defendant is submitting new evidence. Defendant also reiterates its argument that there is good cause.

The Court rules as follows: Defendant has shown that its proposed second motion for summary judgment involves different legal theories and distinct material facts rather than the exact issues previously litigated. "A comparison of the arguments and material facts shows that the [defendant's] second motion for summary judgment is not simply a 'reformatted, condensed, or cosmetically repackaged' version of its first motion." Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4 th 821, 827 (citation omitted). Moreover, defendant has shown good cause based on judicial economy.

ORDER

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.

Case Number: 25TRCV01916 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: B Moving Parties: Plaintiff Anahit Yesayan Responding Party: Defendant BMW of North America, LLC Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. See Order below.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2025, plaintiff Anahit Yesayan filed a complaint against BMW of North America, LLC and McKenna Motors Torrance, Inc. for (1) fraud and deceit, (2) breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (3) breach of implied warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (4) breach of written warranty under Song-Beverly Act, (5) breach of implied warranty under Song-Beverly Act, (6) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code Sec.17200, (7) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code Sec.17500, (8) negligence, and (9) strict liability as to a leased 2024 BMW X5 sDrive40i.

On May 27, 2026, plaintiff filed notice of settlement.

On July 27, 2026, plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP Sec.1021 states: "Except as attorney's fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; . . ."

CCP Sec.1032(b) states: "Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a