Sinclair et al v. Fox Hollow, et al
Filing
888
ORDER re: motion for Judicial Estoppel and Equitable Estoppel signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/29/13. (Nazaroff, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
FOX HOLLOW OF TURLOCK
OWNER’S ASSOCIATION, et. al.,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAUCTRUST, LLC et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5439 AWI SAB
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AND
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
15
16
17
I. History
18
This dispute arises out of a housing development known as Fox Hollow of Turlock
19
(“Property”). Plaintiff Fox Hollow of Turlock Homeowners’ Association (“Fox Hollow HOA”)
20
is the homeowner’s association. Plaintiff California Equity Management Group, Inc. (“CEMG”)
21
is the record owner of lots contained within the Property. Fox Hollow HOA, CEMG, and
22
Andrew Katakis (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are represented by the same counsel, and form one
23
side of the litigation. Defendants Lairtrust, LLC (“Lairtrust”), Capstone, LLC (“Capstone”),
24
Mauctrst, LLC (“Mauctrst”) (collectively “LLC Defendants”) are limited liability companies that
25
were allegedly used to convert homeowners’ association funds, effect property transfers, and
26
commit other acts. Defendants Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair, and Gregory Mauchley
27
(collectively “Individual Defendants”) were principals, directors, or employees of the LLC
28
Defendants.
1
1
In 1988, Richard Sinclair and his wife purchased the Property and obtained approval from
2
the City of Turlock to construct a 35 unit town house complex. They obtained a loan secured by
3
a deed of trust on the Property. They built an apartment complex on the Property. In 1992,
4
Richard Sinclair and his wife defaulted on the loan. They obtained approval to subdivide the
5
Property into 19 lots. On June 8, 1994, Richard Sinclair filed for bankruptcy. In 1995, Stanley
6
Flake as Trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust purchased the Property. In 1997 or 1998, Gregory
7
Mauchley and Mauctrst acquired the Property. Gregory Mauchley and Mauctrst obtained loans
8
secured by the individual lots on the Property from various third parties. They fell into default on
9
those loans. Fox Hollow HOA was established in December 2000. Plaintiffs allege the
10
Individual and LLC Defendants collected homeowners’ association dues on lots already sold to
11
help pay the cost of foreclosure litigation. Through various legal processes and foreclosure,
12
CEMG became the owner of 8 lots on the Property. Defendants challenge CEMG’s ownership
13
based on allegations of wrongful foreclosure and interference with contract.
14
This case is a consolidation of three related cases: an action commenced by Fox Hollow
15
HOA against the Individual Defendants, LLC Defendants, and Stanley Flake as Trustee of
16
Capstone Trust, Case No. CV-F-03-5439 (“Fox Hollow Action”); an action commenced by
17
CEMG against the Individual Defendants, LLC Defendants, Diana Mauchley, Deborah Sinclair,
18
Sinclair Enterprises, Inc., Stanley Flake, and Stanley Flake as Trustee of the F. Hanse Trust and
19
of the Julie Insurance Trust Case No. CVF- 03-5774 (“CEMG Action”); and an action
20
commenced by the LLC Defendants against Plaintiffs in the Stanislaus County Superior Court,
21
Case No. 322675 (“Lairtrust Action”), removed to this Court and consolidated with the Fox
22
Hollow and CEMG Actions by Order filed on October 6, 2003 (“Consolidated Federal Action”).
23
The Consolidated Federal Action is also related to another state court case (Stanislaus County
24
Superior Court, Case No. 332233, originally filed on April 24, 2003) in which the Individual
25
Defendants and LLC Defendants filed suit against Plaintiffs (“State Court Action”). Plaintiffs
26
also filed a cross-complaint against Richard Sinclair, Gregory Mauchley, and Mauctrst. The
27
State Court Action dealt with the substance of the dispute between the parties (the foreclosure
28
process, ownership of the individual lots on the Property). A 36 day bench trial was held,
2
1
starting on December 9, 2008. On August 18, 2009, judgment was entered against the Individual
2
Defendants and LLC Defendants on the main complaint and judgment was entered against
3
Plaintiffs on the cross-complaint. Doc. 433, Part 8. The State Court Action is on appeal.
4
The operative complaint in this Consolidated Federal Action was filed on July 21, 2010.
5
Doc. 410. The Individual Defendants filed a document termed a cross-complaint (“Cross-
6
Complaint) against Plaintiffs. Doc. 425. Lairtrust filed a counterclaim (“Counterclaim”) against
7
Plaintiffs. Doc. 471. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Cross-Complaint and Counterclaim are
8
duplicative of the State Court Action. Richard Sinclair is a practicing attorney and has sought to
9
represent both himself and other defendants in this case. The Consolidated Federal Action has
10
proceeded in parallel to the State Court Action, but as stated above, the heart of dispute is
11
contained in the State Court Action. The Consolidated Federal Action appears to be limited to
12
ancillary disputes such as homeowners’ association funds and the tactics each party used in
13
prosecuting their cases. The parties filed a notice of settlement on July 16, 2007 (“2007
14
Settlement”). Doc. 303. Though the 2007 Settlement was meant to resolve all issues, it was not
15
finalized. The status of the 2007 Settlement is a contested issue in the State Court Action and
16
not part of this case. Judge Wanger retired at the end of September 2011. The case was
17
reassigned to the undersigned. Doc. 804.
18
19
Sinclair has made a motion to enforce the 2007 Settlement on grounds of judicial and
equitable estoppel. Doc. 844. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Doc. 848.
20
21
II. Discussion
22
Sinclair asks the court to apply judicial and equitable estoppel to enforce the 2007
23
Settlement. Doc. 844, 1:3-6. Sinclair seeks to estop Plaintiffs from taking positions contrary to
24
the terms of that agreement. Plaintiffs argue that the 2007 Settlement is currently unenforceable
25
as it is the subject of ongoing litigation in the State Court Action. Judge Wanger ruled that “It is
26
beyond dispute that one of the issues currently under review by the California Court of Appeal is
27
the existence and enforceability of the 2007 settlement agreement. Individual Defendants do not
28
content otherwise.” Doc. 563, 5:14-17; see Doc. 477, Part 8, Ex. E, Notice of Appeal. In
3
1
Superior Court, the trial judge had preliminarily accepted the settlement, but ultimately denied a
2
formal motion to enforce the 2007 Settlement. On January 23, 2013, the Fifth District Court of
3
Appeal issued a ruling, upholding the Superior Court’s ruling, finding there was “no meeting of
4
the minds on several material terms.” Sinclair v. Katakis, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 509,
5
*43-44 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2013). However, the California Supreme Court’s public online case
6
information website shows that Sinclair has appealed that decision.
7
“Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an
8
advantage by asserting one position, and then later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly
9
inconsistent position.” Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.
10
2001). Critically, judicial estoppel requires that the earlier inconsistent position to have actually
11
been relied on by a court: “Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent
12
position introduces no risk of inconsistent court determinations, and thus poses little threat to
13
judicial integrity.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 751 (2001), citations omitted. In this
14
case, Plaintiffs’ earlier inconsistent position was not relied upon by the California state courts as
15
they have thus far declined to enforce the 2007 Settlement.
16
“[F]our elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel: (1)
17
the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be
18
acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so
19
intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon
20
the conduct to his injury.” Driscoll v. Los Angeles, 67 Cal. 2d 297, 305 (Cal. 1967). In this
21
circumstance, Sinclair argues his injury is that “there was a written agreement which caused the
22
State Court trial to be vacated and also vacated this federal court action for a number of years.”
23
Doc. 844, 25:10-12. The fact that trial was delayed does not appear to be good grounds for
24
applying equitable estoppel in this circumstance, especially since it has been Sinclair’s legal
25
appeals which have pushed out final resolution in the State Court Action. Further, this court
26
would not interfere with the California Supreme Court’s jurisdiction by collaterally enforcing the
27
2007 Settlement.
28
4
III. Order
1
2
3
Sinclair’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated:
0m8i78
March 29, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?