Court Opinion

ID: 9351870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-03 23:02:17.41677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:04:06.753676
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/3/23 Sheen v. Mirabella Investments Group CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION EIGHT

KWANG K. SHEEN,                                                 B301718

    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                    Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. BC631510
         v.

MIRABELLA INVESTMENTS
GROUP, LLC,

    Defendant and Respondent.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Patricia D. Nieto, Judge. Affirmed.
      Los Angeles Center for Community Law and Action, Noah
Grynberg, Tyler Anderson, and Gina Hong for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
      Gupta, Evans & Ayres, Ajay Gupta, Chris S. Evans and
Jacob Ayres for Defendant and Respondent.

                                    ____________________
       This is Sheen IV.
       Sheen I was our 2019 ruling that Wells Fargo Bank owed
Kwang Sheen no tort duty during contract negotiations. (Sheen
v. Wells Fargo Bank (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 346 (Sheen I).)
       Sheen II was Sheen v. FCI Lender Services, Inc. (Oct. 30,
2020, B297640) 2020 WL 6375020 [nonpub. opn.] and was against
a different defendant in the same home loan lawsuit. The force of
Sheen I’s logic propelled victory for this different defendant.
       Sheen III was our Supreme Court’s affirmance of Sheen I in
2022. (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905
(Sheen III).)
       Sheen IV involves the same plaintiff Sheen, his same
lawyer, and their same second amended complaint in the same
home loan case, although now the appeal is against a different
but similarly situated defendant: Mirabella Investments Group,
LLC. (See Sheen I, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at pp. 349–350
[describing Mirabella’s role].)
       Absent a tort duty, Sheen had no case against any of these
defendants. Sheen III annulled Sheen’s theory against them.
                          DISPOSITION
       We affirm the judgment and award costs to the respondent.

                                         WILEY, J.
We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.        HARUTUNIAN, J.*

*Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.

                                2