Recmaq v. Hollywood Auto Mall, LLC

Decision Date21 July 2014
Docket NumberCivil No.12cv0945 AJB (MDD)
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California
PartiesCOMERCIALIZADORA RECMAQ, Plaintiff, v. HOLLYWOOD AUTO MALL, LLC, a California limited liability company dba HOLLYWOOD MOTORS, MOHAMAD REZA GHASEMI, and JAIME SOTOMAYOR, Defendants.





No. 77);






78); and






Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Comercializadora Recmaq Limitada's ("Recmaq") Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 77), Motion to Strike Defendant Mohamad Reza Ghasemi's ("Ghasemi") Affirmative Defenses, (Doc. No. 78), and ex parte motion to continue the final Pre-trial Conference and associated deadlines,(Doc. No. 88).1 Recmaq also filed a request for judicial notice in conjunction with its partial motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 77-12.) Ghasemi is not represented by counsel and did not file an opposition to either motion, but did appear at the July 10, 2014 motion hearing to contest both noticed motions. (Doc. No. 89.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Recmaq's partial motion for summary judgment, GRANTS Recmaq's request for judicial notice,2 GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Recmaq's motion to strike Ghasemi's affirmative defenses, and GRANTS Recmaq's motion to continue the Pre-trial Conference and corresponding deadlines.

I. Factual Background
A. Formation of Hollywood Auto Mall, LLC

In August 1998, Ghasemi filed Articles of Organization with the California Secretary of State to form Hollywood Auto Mall, LLC ("Hollywood Motors").3 (TAC, Ex. C; Doc. No. 77, Hewitt Decl., Ex. A, Ghasemi Depo. at 84:20-25.) The Articles of Organization listed Ghasemi as the initial agent for service of process, and indicated that Hollywood Motors would by managed by one manager. (Id.) The Articles of Organization did not list the names of Hollywood Motors' member(s) and/or manager(s), and the Court is unaware of whether Hollywood Motors had/has an Operating Agreement. (Id.)

In early 1999, Jaime Sotomayor ("Sotomayor") approached Ghasemi and informed Ghasemi that he could provide the necessary capital to keep Hollywood Motors operational.4 (Ghasemi Depo. at 23:21-24:6.) At this time, Hollywood Motors had little or no inventory and was about to close. (Id. at 23:21-25.) Ghasemi knew Sotomayor through Mossy Nissan, where Sotomayor was his supervisor. (Id. at 24:7-8.) After Sotomayor leased property at 1427 Broadway to be used for the benefit of Hollywood Motors, both Sotomayor and Ghasemi left their employment with Mossy Nissan. (Id. at 24:14-24.) As reflected on Ghasemi and Sotomayor's 2004 Schedule K-1 Tax Forms, Ghasemi owned 1% of Hollywood Motors and Sotomayor owned 99%. (Hewitt Decl., Ex. B.) By 2005, ownership of Hollywood Motors was split evenly between Ghasemi and Sotomayor, each owning a 50% interest.5 (Id.)

During the course of Ghasemi and Sotomayor's business relationship, Ghasemi was responsible for buying and selling used automobiles for Hollywood Motors and Sotomayor served as the manager. (Ghasemi Depo. at 24:9-13.) Ghasemi and Sotomayor agreed that Ghasemi would initially receive $3,000 a month in compensation, but that after the business was "up and running," Ghasemi would receive $5,000 a month, plus a 20% commission. (Id. at 24:25-25:2, 27:20-25.) It was also understood that when Hollywood Motors was "hurting for money," Ghasemi would be paid "at a later date." (Id. at 58:18-23.) At one point, Sotomayor owed Ghasemi $20,000 to $30,000 in un-paid compensation. (Id. at 24-25.)

Hollywood Motors maintained bank accounts at Wells Fargo and North Island Credit Union. (Id. at 64:7-12.) Ghasemi had access to both accounts and signed several checks on behalf of Hollywood Motors. (Id. at 64:19-24, 132:11-146.) Some of the checks that were signed by Ghasemi on behalf of Hollywood Motors were made out to Ghasemi. (Id. at 128-144.) Ghasemi also had a Hollywood Motors American Expresscredit card. (Id. at 103:18-25.) Ghasemi used this credit card for personal expenses, with Sotomayor's approval, when he did not receive timely compensation. (Id. at 104:1-23.)

B. Business Relationship Between Hollywood Motors and Recmaq

In or around 2002, Recmaq, acting through its then manager Anibal Ortiz ("Ortiz"), and Sotomayor, acting on behalf of Hollywood Motors, entered into an oral contract. (Id. at 53-55, 57.) Pursuant to this oral contract, Hollywood Motors would locate heavy machinery for sale through private dealers and at United States auctions, and then advise Recmaq of the availability, condition, and specifications of the identified products. (Id.) Ghasemi was responsible for locating all heavy machinery requested by Recmaq. (Id. at 52:24-25, 100.) Once Ghasemi located heavy machinery he thought Recmaq might be interested in purchasing, either he or Sotomayor would contact Recmaq to see if Recmaq wanted to purchase the equipment. (Id. at 54.) Sometimes, Ghasemi personally emailed Recmaq information about equipment from Sotomayor's email account and/or responded to emails sent by Recmaq to Sotomayor regarding equipment requests. (Ghasemi Depo. at 52.) Ghasemi emailed Recmaq from Sotomayor's email account because Sotomayor wasn't "tech savvy." (Id. at 55:18-21.)

Some of the auctions Ghasemi bid at on behalf of Recmaq required a deposit before a bid could be placed. (Id. at 177.) The amount needed for the deposit was different for each auction. (Id.) Some auctions required a percentage of the purchase price, while others required a flat fee. (Id.) Ghasemi is not aware of any auction that required a flat $60,000 deposit. (Id.) Hollywood Motors received a commission for each piece of machinery it sold by marking up each piece of machinery by $3,000. (Id. at 151:11-20.) Ghasemi testified that he generally received 20% of the $3,000 commission paid to Hollywood Motors as an "independent contractor." (Doc. No. 77-8 at 12.)

If Recmaq advised Hollywood Motors that it wanted to purchase equipment that had been located by Ghasemi, Ghasemi would purchase the equipment and Sotomayor would pay all remaining fees and ship the equipment to Recmaq. (Ghasemi Depo. at 57:4-9.) Hollywood Motors mailed and/or emailed invoices to Recmaq for equipmentthat had been purchased by Ghasemi from January 21, 2008 to September 15, 2010. (TAC, Ex. D.) After receiving an invoice, Recmaq would transfer the appropriate funds via electronic funds transfer to Hollywood Motors' Wells Fargo bank account. (Doc. No. 77, Hewitt Decl., Ex. F, Costabal Decl. ¶ 5.) Recmaq wired funds to Hollywood Motors on several occasions from May 9, 2007 to August 27, 2010, to purchase heavy equipment located by Ghasemi. (Id.) Ghasemi was aware that Recmaq was purchasing the heavy machinery from Hollywood Motors in order to refurbish and resell the equipment to its customers in Chile. (Ghasemi Depo. at 156:16-20.)

Recmaq purchased several pieces of heavy machinery from Hollywood Motors. (Costabal Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.) To facilitate these purchases, Recmaq kept a balance of funds on deposit with Hollywood Motors. (Id.) Defendants periodically prepared balance statements for Recmaq to confirm and validate Recmaq's balance of funds held on deposit by Defendants. (Costabal Decl. ¶ 3.) In or about August 2005, Drago Gluscevic ("Gluscevic"), Recmaq's owner, and Ortiz, Recmaq's then manager, visited Defendants in California. (Ghasemi Depo. at 44:8-21, 51:4-52:5.) Ghasemi personally met with Gluscevic on three different occasions during this visit: (1) at the office of Hollywood Motors in El Cajon, (Id. at 44:8-21); (2) at Sotomayor's house, (Id. at 51:4-18); and (3) at Ghasemi's house, (Id. at 49:8-18). During the meeting at Ghasemi's house, Ghasemi showed Gluscevic his work computer to demonstrate how Ghasemi bid at auctions. (Id. at 49:12-18.)

On December 31, 2009, Defendants promised to ship eight Caterpillar "backhoe loaders" to Recmaq for $338,400. (Costabal Decl. ¶ 6, Ex A, figure 1(a).) In connection with this purchase, Defendants withdrew $338,400 from the balance of funds Recmaq kept on account with Hollywood Motors. (Id.) In or around March 2010, Sotomayor advised Recmaq that there was a problem with the sale of the eight Caterpillar "backhoe loaders," and promised to either complete the sale and arrange to have the equipment delivered to Recmaq, or return the funds to Recmaq by June 2010. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Recmaqagreed. Defendants failed to deliver the machinery as promised or return the $338,400. (Id.)

On March 3, 2010, Defendants promised to ship three Caterpillar "420 E 2008" units to Recmaq for $139,500. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exhibit A, figure 2(a).) In connection with this purchase, Defendants withdrew $139,500 from the balance of funds Recmaq kept on account with Hollywood Motors. (Id. at ¶ 8, Ex. A, figure 2(b).) To date, Recmaq has not received the three units or a return of the $139,500. (Id. at ¶ 8, Ex. A, figure 2(c).)

On August 21, 2010, Defendants shipped six "New Holland LB75B" heavy machinery units to Recmaq. (Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. A, figure 5.) Recmaq alleges that in connection with this transaction, Sotomayor promised Recmaq a $2,000 refund for shipping costs that were lower than originally stated because the machinery was shipped out of Houston, Texas rather than Newark, New Jersey. (Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. D.) To date, Recmaq has not received the $2,000 refund in overstated shipping costs. (Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. F.) As of about September 21, 2010, Recmaq had a standing account balance on deposit with Defendants in the amount of $619,100. (Id. at ¶ 9, Ex. A, figure 3, Ex. B, figures 4(a)-4(d).) As of the date of this Order, Hollywood Motors has not returned these funds to Recmaq. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11.)


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT