Facts

Plaintiff Bharpur Singh Dhanoa was one of two partners who entered into a Commercial Property Purchase Agreement to purchase a property located at 2421 E. Artesia, Long Beach. Concurrently, plaintiff and his partner entered into negotiations to purchase the gentleman's club known as KESEF Inc. dba Paris Showgirls ("the Club"), which was located on the property. Century 21 Beachside Realty ("Beachside") was the broker and Sunil Roy Vij ("Vij") acted as a dual agent (collectively "defendants") for the property transaction. They were not involved in the business transaction. Plaintiff initially argued that defendants were involved in the business transaction, but then withdrew that claim.

After three offers by the partners to buy the property, which they unilaterally revoked each time, the partners finally agreed to complete the transaction. Defendants alleged that in order to entice the seller to sell the property, after having unilaterally revoked their offers three times previously, and to entice the seller to give the partners possession of the business which the partners had not paid for, the partners agreed to make their initial deposit of $580,000 for the property released immediately upon the opening of escrow and to make the deposit non-refundable. The provision was included in Additional Sale Escrow Instructions, which plaintiff signed before a notary. Plaintiff contributed $350,000 of the $580,000. Plaintiff denied that he had ever agreed to his deposit being released immediately upon the opening of escrow and to it being non-refundable.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Vij fell below the applicable standard of care for a real estate agent in that he fraudulently added a Release of Funds provision, which allowed for the immediate, non-refundable release of an initial deposit to Seller, to the Commercial Property Purchase Agreement and to the Additional Sale Escrow Instructions.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the transaction was fast moving, and that the Release of Funds provision was added at the request of plaintiff's partner. Further, the Release of Funds provision was included in the Additional Sale Escrow Instructions prepared by the escrow company, and plaintiff was required to provide, and did provide, a notarized signature on the Additional Sale Escrow Instructions directly underneath that provision.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $670,000 to settle the matter, which he later reduced to $570,000. Defendants served a CCP 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $20,001.

Damages

Plaintiff alleged that he lost $350,000 due to a "Release of Funds" provision which he alleged was fraudulently included in a Commercial Property Purchase Agreement and Additional Sale Escrow Instructions that caused his deposit to be released immediately to the seller and to be non-refundable. He also claimed that he lost investment opportunities in La Vegas, Nev. due to the loss of use of this money. This lost investment opportunities claim was excluded based upon the granting of defendants' Motion in Limine. Plaintiff also claimed that he lost $100,000 in a strip club business because he paid $10,000 per month for two years to compensate losses of the business. He later withdrew this claim.

Result

Defense verdict. Vij did not breach his fiduciary duty. Vij did not defraud Dhanoa by misrepresentation. Vij did not commit fraud by concealment. Vij did not engage in any conduct with malice, oppression or fraud. Vij was negligent, but his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Dhanoa harm.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 29, 2008.

Deliberation

four hours

Length

seven days