Martins

Martins v. New West Investment Group

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 20233:18-cv-01731-AJB-AHGCalifornia3,164 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

23 Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 27, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.) The operative 24 complaint is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 13.) According to the FAC, 25 Plaintiff was hired in 1998 to design and supervise a construction project titled the El Nopal 26 Estates II project. (Doc. No. 13, FAC at ¶¶ 40–45.) Plaintiff created and designed the 27 project plans, which included a tentative map, development plan, and specific technical 28 drawings (collectively, “Plans”). (Id. at ¶ 45.) Plaintiff copyrighted these Plans. (Id. at ¶ 46.) In 2000, the City of Santee approved the Plans and construction began thereafter. (Id. at ¶¶ 49, 50, 52.) Plaintiff supervised the construction until 2007 when the owner/developer defaulted on the project. (Id. at ¶¶ 53–54.) The FAC describes Defendants as domestic and business partners. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.) Josephson is a hard-money lender, and Knohl is a private investor. (Id. at ¶ 9, 10.) Plaintiff claims that Josephson “wrongfully recorded a statutory notice of default against the project” which resulted in the project being ceased and the property being subject to an 9 …

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.