Estate of Svetlana Leonidova Dayal vs Logix Federal Credit Union et al

Case Number

24CV01984

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 08/26/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Case Management Conference; Motion: Compel

Tentative Ruling

Estate of Svetlana Leonidovna Dayal v. Logix Federal Credit Union, et al.    

Case No. 24CV01984         

Hearing Date: July 1, 2024                                                     

HEARING:              Motion To Compel Arbitration And Stay Judicial Proceedings

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Svetlana Leonidovna Dayal, as Executor of the Estate of Svetlana Leonidovna Dayal: Self Represented

For Defendants Logix Federal Credit Union, Ana Fonseca, Timothy Jensen, and Wendy Vannoy: Mark K. Worthge, Elizabeth M. Sanguinetti, Litchfield Cavo LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court continues the hearing on the motion of defendants to compel arbitration and stay proceedings to September 9, 2024. On or before August 30, 2024, defendants Logix Federal Credit Union, Ana Fonseca, Timothy Jensen, and Wendy Vannoy shall file with the court the supporting declarations of Liliana Palma and Mark K. Worthge identified and referenced in their moving papers, in the same form that each declaration was served on plaintiff. No other papers in support of or in opposition to the present motion shall be filed by any party apart from the declarations authorized herein, without prior leave of court. To the extent any party files additional supporting or opposing papers not authorized herein and without leave of court, these papers will be disregarded.

Background:

On April 9, 2024, plaintiff the Estate of Svetlana Leonidovna (the Estate), by and through its Executor, Svetlana-Leonidovna Dayal (Dayal), filed a verified complaint in this matter against defendants Logix Federal Credit Union (Logix), Ana Fonseca (Fonseca), Timothy Jensen (Jensen), and Wendy Vannoy (Vannoy) (collectively, defendants), alleging six causes of action: (1) conversion; (2) breach of contract; (3) recoupment; (4) defamation; (5) punitive damages; and (6) unjust enrichment. As alleged in the complaint:

On November 23, 2021, Dayal purchased a used BMW automobile (the vehicle) from for the price of $22,489, of which $22,444.45 was to be paid by a loan (the Loan) from Logix to Dayal. (Compl., ¶¶ 15, 17 & Exh. A.) Dayal issued a promissory note and signed a security agreement (the Note) for the Loan which Dayal transferred to Logix. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19 & Exh. B.) Logix assigned an account number to the Note but did not deliver or transfer money to Dayal or the seller of the vehicle. (Id. at ¶¶ 19-22.) The contract between Dayal and Logix does not state that Dayal is under any obligation to return the vehicle to Logix. (Id. at ¶ 27.)

On March 13, 2024, Dayal tendered a negotiable instrument payable to Logix in the amount of $14,275.22, which is the amount that a Logix representative had requested in full payment of the Loan, together with a letter explaining what the payment was for and to which account it should be credited. (Compl., ¶¶ 34, 37 & Exh. E.) Logix did not raise any objections to the payment and did not contact Dayal after receiving the payment on March 15, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶ 36 & 38.) Dayal concluded that Logix had accepted the payment and would release its claim of lien on the vehicle’s title. (Id. at ¶ 38.)

Logix failed to credit Dayal’s account for the payment made by Dayal on March 13, 2024. (Compl., ¶¶ 34 & 37.) On March 20, 2024, the vehicle was taken by Logix at the direction of Vannoy, who is Logix’s Senior Repossession Specialist, despite Vannoy’s knowledge that Logix had been paid in full several days prior and that the security interest in the vehicle was without effect. (Id. at ¶¶ 39-40 & Exh. F.) Vannoy stated in a letter dated March 20, 2024, that Logix intends to sell the vehicle on April 4, 2024, unless Dayal contacts Logix to make additional payment arrangements. (Id. at ¶¶ 40-42.)

On May 17, 2024, defendants filed a motion for an order compelling the arbitration of the claims made by Dayal in this action. Defendants also request that the court stay these proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration. The hearing on the motion was set for July 1, 2024.

On June 20, 2024, Dayal filed an opposition to the motion of defendants to compel arbitration and stay these proceedings. Court records also reflect that on June 27, 2024, Dayal filed a request for judicial notice in support of the opposition to the motion.

On June 28, 2024, defendants filed their reply to the opposition of Dayal. On the same date, Dayal filed a sur-reply.

Also on June 28, 2024, defendants separately filed objections to Dayal’s sur-reply and to the request for judicial notice filed by Dayal on June 27, 2024.

On July 1, 2024, the Court issued its Minute Order continuing the hearing on the motion to August 26, 2024 (the Minute Order).

Analysis:

Prior to the July 1, 2024, hearing on the present motion, the Court issued its tentative ruling (the tentative ruling) on the motion, observing that defendants assert in the notice that the motion is based on supporting declarations of Liliana Palma (Palma) and Mark K. Worthge (Worthge). (See Notice at p. ii, ll. 3-6.) The Court further noted that the caption of the motion also identifies concurrently filed declarations of Palma and Worthge. (Id. at p. i.)

The Court further noted that, in their supporting memorandum, defendants offer evidence and information, which ostensibly appears in the Palma and Worthge declarations, regarding Dayal’s member account with Logix, an account application signed by Dayal, an arbitration agreement purportedly appearing in an account agreement to which defendants contend Dayal is bound, and the contents of the arbitration agreement. (Memorandum at pp. 1-3.) The Court also observed that in the opposition to the motion, Dayal presents “rebuttals” to the Palma and Worthge declarations and information appearing in those declarations. (See Opp. at pp. 5-10.) Based on the information and arguments offered by the parties as further described above, it appeared to the Court that the moving papers served on Dayal by defendants included the Palma and Worthge declarations.

The Court further noted in its tentative ruling that it has no record of the filing of the Palma and Worthge declarations by defendants. Because available information indicated that the Palma and Worthge declarations each include information necessary to determine the present motion, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to August 26, 2024, and ordered defendants to file, on or before July 8, 2024, the supporting Palma and Worthge declarations identified and referenced in the motion, in the same form each declaration was served on Dayal.

Though in its Minute Order, the Court continued this matter to August 26, 2024, there is no record of the tentative ruling on the motion having been incorporated into the Minute Order. As Court records reflect that defendants did not file the Palma or Worthge declarations on or before July 8, 2024, there appears to be some confusion with respect to the filing of these declarations.

The Court additionally notes that, in their reply, defendants contest Dayal’s objections to the Palma and Worthge declarations as “baseless” and without legal or evidentiary support. (Reply at p. 6.) Defendants also submit, in support of their reply, a supplemental Palma declaration in which Palma refers to her “previous” declaration. (Supp. Palma Decl., ¶¶ 1-2 & 4.) The reply papers filed by defendants further demonstrate that the motion is based on information appearing in the supporting Palma and Worthge declarations which are not presently before the Court.

For all reasons discussed above, the Court will further continue the hearing on the motion to permit defendants to file the Palma declaration and Worthge declaration with the Court. These declarations must be filed in the same form that they were served on Dayal. Nothing herein shall authorize the filing of additional supporting or opposing papers by Dayal or defendants without prior leave of court. To the extent any party files additional papers in support of or in opposition to the motion which are not authorized herein and without leave of court, these papers will be disregarded.