Reply In Support of Ex Parte ApplicationReplyCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.October 3, 2017Electronically FILED by Superior ¢purt of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/27/2019 01:50 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk 1 [FINCH LAW Brent M. Finch (State Bar No.: 202866) 2 1127200 Agoura Road, Suite 102 Calabasas, California 91301 3 || Telephone: (818) 436-6411 bfinch@brentfinchlaw.com 5 || Attorneys for Plaintiff Republic Floor, LLC 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 10 REPUBLIC FLOOR, LLC, Case No.: BC678122 11 Plaintiff, REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 12 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ” - LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENTS TO COMPLAINT SUBSTITUTING IN “DOES” 1 TO 4 14 |[|REFLOORS; EUROPEAN FLOORING & DESIGN CENTER, INC., a California 15 || Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) : Assigned for all purposes to: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 Defendants. The Honorable Dennis J. Landin, 17 Dept. 51 18 fm Complaint Filed: October 3, 2017 19 Trial Date: March 12, 2019 20 21 22 23 24 To reiterate, in this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, including 25 || Does, are liable to Plaintiff for 40 unpaid, signed, written invoices from August and September, 26 ||2015, for material, labor, equipment, and supplies, purchase, storage, and delivery of hardwood 27 || flooring products, totaling $66,843.88 (after Defendants paid $10,000 toward the balance). 28 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION NO 0 NN O N Wn BA W N = No N N DN O N m= m d e m e m e t p d p d e d p e d p e d In October 2015, Khalid “Mike” Qudsi instructed Plaintiff to transfer these invoices from his father’s (Walid Qudsi) “old companies” (Eco Tree Floor Covering, Inc. and Carpet Land Floor Center, which are dba’s under Anderco Floor Covering, Inc.) to be payable by his “new company,” Defendant ReFloors, which is a dba of Defendant European F looring & Design Center, Inc. Mike Qudsi instructed Plaintiff to transfer these invoices to his “new company” because he represented that his father’s old companies were no longer in business and “they” started doing business as European Flooring & Design Center, Inc. as of October 3,2015. All of these companies have always operated out of the same building: 12515 and 12517 Sherman Way, North Hollywood, CA 91605. Based on this representation, Plaintiff transferred the subject invoices to ReFloors/European Flooring & Design Center, Inc. Initially, ReFloors/European Flooring & Design Center, Inc. agreed to take responsibility for these transferred invoices and, in or around May 2017, this “new company” agreed to pay “an additional” $30,000 (to the $10,000 already paid) to settle these unpaid invoices. However, Mike Qudsi then reneged on that deal, forcing Plaintiff to file this lawsuit against the only defendants it knew existed and were still in business at the time-and the only companies it knew were ever owned by Mike Qudsi: ReFloors/European Flooring & Design Center, Inc. To be safe, Plaintiff also sued Does 1-50, inclusive. Recently, in discovery, Plaintiff investigated and discovered that both Mike Qudsi and his father, Walid Qudsi, made intentional misrepresentations subject to the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California regarding the existence and ownership of the “old companies” to avoid liability, including for the subject unpaid invoices. Specifically, Plaintiff learned that Mike Qudsi has always owned the “old companies”; that his father never owned them; and that Mike Qudsi was operating all of these companies out of the same building and playing a shell game to avoid debts and liabilities. The crux of Defendants’ Opposition to the Ex Parte Application is that “third parties other than Defendant” are liable for the subject invoices. and that ReFloors/European Flooring & 2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION No B E o d O y W r d s w D Ge s N N N O N = e e e t e t e m p l p m e n e a 2 wu 5 2 R B E E E E B E E S E E E E E 2 S Design Center, Inc. never ordered or received the subject material, labor, equipment, and supplies, purchase, storage, and delivery of hardwood flooring products, rather, the “old companies” Mike Qudsi lied about shutting down and never owning (and that he has always operated out of the same building) somehow ordered or received the subject material, labor, equipment, and supplies, purchase, storage, and delivery of hardwood flooring products. So, while it is true that Plaintiff once knew about the existence of all 4 proposed Doe Defendants-Plaintiff never knew until recently that they were owned and operated by Mike Qudsi from the same building. Good cause exists for this Court to grant this Ex Parte Application. Indeed, leave to amend to substitute defendants’ true names for “Does 1-4” is routinely granted without notice or hearing of any kind. Absent prejudice to these defendants, this Court has no discretion to refuse these amendments. Streicher v. Ti ommy'’s Elec. Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 876, 884-885. As long as the statute of limitations has not yet run, the amendment cannot be challenged on the ground that Plaintiff was not “truly ignorant” of the identities of the Doe defendants when the Complaint was filed. Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal.App.4'™ 380, 387. Thus, Defendant’s main argument in Opposition to this Ex Parte Application is fatally flawed. These 4 Doe Defendants are not prejudiced by being substituted in to this lawsuit because they are all one and the same with ReFloors/European Flooring & Design Center, Inc. Only a short trial continuance, if any, is needed for these defendants to get up to speed and respond to the Complaint. The charging allegations of the Complaint remain the same: Defendants, and each of them, including Does, are liable to Plaintiff for 40 unpaid, signed, written invoices from August and September, 2015, for material, labor, equipment, and supplies, purchase. storage, and delivery of hardwood flooring products, totaling $66,843.88 (after Defendants paid $10,000). To avoid any prejudice, however, Plaintiff proposes to stipulate to any trial continuance Defendants need to give them sufficient time to retain separate counsel if necessary, to respond to the Complaint, and/or to conduct additional discovery. 3 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION wn A W N Oo 0 ON Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 These Amendments are necessary because if the Complaint is not amended to substitute these defendants’ true identities, then this Court would be without jurisdiction to render judgments against these defendants. Meller & Snyder v. R&T Properties, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4™ 1303, 1311. Alternatively, Plaintiff could file a separate lawsuit against these 4 proposed Doe Defendants, but that would be inefficient and a waste of this Court’s limited time and resources, and it would cause the same principals to incur substantially more fees and costs. F urther, judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit and, thus, this Court should liberally exercise its discretion to permit the proposed Amendments to Complaint. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4" 581, 596. Accordingly, this Court should grant Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application and sign the Orders on the proposed Amendments to Complaint to substitute defendants’ true names as follows: e Doe 1: Eco Tree Floor Covering, Inc. ® Doe 2: Carpet Land Floor Center ® Doe 3: Anderco Floor Covering, Inc. * Doe 4: Khalid “Mike” Qudsi Dated: February 27,2019 FINCH LAW By: Brent M. Finch Counsel for Plaintiff Republic Floor, LLC 4 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION Republic Floor, LLC v. ReFloors, etc. LASC Case No. BC678122 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 27200 Agoura Road, Suite 102, Calabasas, CA 91301. On February 27, 2019, | served the foregoing document described as: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION on all interested parties in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 0 (BY MAIL) | am familiar with the ordinary business practice of Finch Law for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service at the aforementioned place of business and that the above-entitied document was placed in a sealed envelope and deposited for collection and mailing on the date stated above, following such ordinary practices, and in such manner as to cause it to be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the ordinary course of business, addressed as indicated above. [X] (BY E-MAIL) | caused such document to be e-mailed to the addressees on the attached service list. 1 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) | caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. ( (BY EXPRESS MAIL, CCP 1013(c,d) | caused such envelope to be placed in the box regularly maintained by the express service carrier, Federal Express.. [X] (STATE) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [X] Executed on February 27, 2019, at Calabasas, Califogfia £4 Brent M. Finch Republic Floor, LLC v. ReFloors, etc. LASC Case No. BC678122 SERVICE LIST Raviv Netzah, Esq. NETZAH & SHEM-TOV, INC. 15303 Ventura Blvd., 9" Floor Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 T: (818) 995-4200 F: (818) 783-6775 www.netshemlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants ReFloors and European Flooring & Design Center
