IRENE INTELLIGATOR, et al. vs IMPERIUM ENERGY INC, et al.

(Alhambra Courthouse: Dept. X) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT X LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Unless otherwise indicated in the tentative ruling, counsel/parties wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may send an email to [email protected] advising the Court and all counsel of their intention to submit.

Prior to sending an email to Department X, counsel/parties should confer with any opposing or appearing parties in the action to determine whether all parties submit. Unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If all parties submit on the Court's tentative ruling, no appearance is necessary and counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the Court's tentative ruling.

vs IMPERIUM ENERGY INC, et al. Defendants' request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence and filing of the court records and the existence of the identified state contractor licenses. (Evid. Code, Sec.Sec. 452(d), 453.) The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action against Shayan and Bahman. The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the Sixth Cause of Action against Bahman. Defendant is to answer the FAC within 15 days of notice of this ruling.

Fourth Cause of Action As to Shayan, the incorporated allegations identify statements he allegedly made concerning the favorable reviews and Imperium's competence. The pleading does not allege with comparable specificity that Shayan knew the reviews were fake when he made those statements, intentionally concealed that fact, or made the statements with the intent to induce Plaintiffs' reliance. The general allegation that Imperium acted through its officers does not supply the missing individualized facts.

As to Bahman, the First Amended Complaint alleges that he "knew or should have known" the reviews were fake and failed to disclose that fact. That alternative allegation does not clearly allege actual knowledge and intent to defraud. Nor does the pleading identify a communication, affirmative concealment, or other conduct by Bahman supporting the fraud claim apart from his corporate and licensing positions. Accordingly, the demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED as to Shayan and Bahman.

Fifth Cause of Action The Fifth Cause of Action similarly alleges that Imperium affirmed the favorable reviews, concealed their alleged falsity, and thereby induced Plaintiffs to contract. Although the claim incorporates the earlier allegations concerning Shayan, it does not specifically plead his knowledge of falsity and intent at the time of the alleged representation. Likewise, the allegations against Bahman do not identify any representation or intentional concealment personally undertaken by him.

The generalized allegations that the corporate fraud was committed "by and through" Shayan and Bahman do not distinguish their respective knowledge, representations, omissions, or participation. (FAC, P. 148.) Because fraud must be pleaded against each defendant specifically, the allegations are insufficient in their present form. Accordingly, the demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED as to Shayan and Bahman.

Sixth Cause of Action Defendants correctly observe that section 7068.1 does not require an officer personally to supervise every construction site or perform every listed supervisory activity. But the First Amended Complaint alleges a complete failure to exercise supervision or control, not merely Bahman's absence from the jobsite. Whether Bahman exercised another statutorily permissible form of supervision, whether any breach caused Plaintiffs' damages, and whether the evidence ultimately supports personal liability present factual questions that cannot be resolved on demurrer. The Court therefore concludes that the Sixth Cause of Action sufficiently alleges an individual duty, breach, causation, and damage for pleading purposes. The demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED. Court is to give notice.

Case Number: 24NNCV02890 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: X #3 - ROSIE AND BLUE INVESTMENTS, LLC vs OPUS ESCROW, et al. As the bankruptcy of Defendant Opus remains pending, the Court continues the Order to Show Cause hearing to November 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X. The parties are invited to submit briefing on the issue of the Court's authority to sign the order for good faith settlement while the bankruptcy stay is in effect. Any briefing on this issue should be submitted five court days prior to the continued OSC hearing. Court is to give notice.

Case Number: 25NNCV03653 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: X #20 - AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs AIDA SHORVOGHLIAN, et al. Summary judgment is GRANTED for $247,539.84 and recoverable costs, without additional prejudgment interest. Plaintiff has not established a separate amount of additional prejudgment interest beyond the balance owed.

Plaintiff has adequately authenticated the Cardmember Agreement and account statements for purposes of this motion. The declaration identifies the records, explains how and when they were created, describes their maintenance in the ordinary course of business, and addresses the reliability of American Express's computerized systems. The evidence establishes a written Cardmember Agreement governing the account, Defendants' acceptance through use of the account, and Plaintiff's extension of credit. A credit-card collection action based on the cardholder's contractual obligation to pay is properly treated as an action for breach of the cardmember agreement. (See Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 971.)