Nourmand

I. INTRODUCTION

17 Before the Court are three concurrently filed motions: (1) Defendants 19 Nourmand & Associates (“N&A”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended 20 Complaint (“FAC”) (“Motion I”) (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot. I”), ECF No. 22); (2) 21 Stephan “Saeed” Nourmand (“Saeed”) and The Sunset Landmark Investment LLC 22 (“Sunset”) (collectively “Defendants S”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC (“Motion 23 II”) (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot. II”), ECF No. 23); (3) Defendants S Motion to Sanction 24 Plaintiffs (“Motion III”). (Mot. for Sanction (“Mot. III”), ECF No. 34.) For the 25 reasons discussed below, the Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED in part, and 26 DENIED in part, and the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.1

28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs Relevant Group, LLC 3 (“Relevant”), 1541 Wilcox Hotel LLC (“Wilcox”), and 6516 Tommie Hotel LLC 4 (“Tommie”) 5421…