Goldstein

Goldstein v. SF Holding Company CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 6, 2024B332493California6,267 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mori, J.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background SF Holding filed a complaint against Goldstein in December 2020. SF Holding asserted that on August 31, 2015, Goldstein and certain related business entities executed a promissory note in favor of SF Holding in the amount of $1,247,553.55, which was due and payable on June 30, 2016. The 2015 note was secured by a Pledge and Security Agreement. SF Holding alleged Goldstein and the business entities breached the promissory note and security agreement by failing to make required payments. Goldstein filed his initial cross-complaint against respondents on January 21, 2021. After respondents demurred, Goldstein filed a first amended cross-complaint in December 2021. Respondents then demurred to the first amended cross- complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer in its entirety with leave to amend.

2 Goldstein filed his second amended cross-complaint in September 2022. Pursuant to stipulation, Goldstein filed the operative TACC in May 2023.

B. Factual Allegations of the TACC The TACC made the following allegations. Goldstein was a music producer, singer-songwriter, and talent manager. In 2006, Goldstein and Stephenson each owned…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.