Opinion
Case No.:SACV 14-00541 JVS (DFMx)
02-10-2016
HANI NAIM SAEED SHARAF, a foreign national, Plaintiff, v. STARBUZZ TOBACCO, INC., a California Corporation. Defendant AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION.
FINAL JUDGMENT
On April 8, 2014, Plaintiff Hani Naim Saeed Sharaf ("Plaintiff" or "Sharaf") filed a complaint initiating the above-captioned action against Defendant Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. ("Starbuzz") alleging breach of contract and fraud. [ECF No. 1]. On May 5, 2014, Sharaf filed a First Amended Complaint ("First Amended Complaint"). [ECF No. 9].
On September 19, 2014, Salim Elhalwani ("Elhalwani") filed a separate lawsuit for declaratory relief and judgment against Sharaf to enforce his rights as Starbuzz's 100% shareholder, entitled Salim Elhalwani v. Hani Naim Saeed Sharaf, CACD Case No. 8:14-cv-01522 JVS-DFM ("Declaratory Action"). On February 20, 2015, Elhalwani filed a motion to consolidate the two actions. On March 30, 2015, this Court granted Elhalwani's motion and consolidated the two actions as above-captioned. [ECF No. 49].
On December 11, 2015, Starbuzz filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment of claims, defenses, or issues, and supporting documents ("MSJ"). [ECF Nos. 69 through 69-14]. Sharaf filed his opposition to the MSJ and supporting documents on January 4, 2016. [ECF Nos. 81 through 81-3]. Starbuzz filed its reply brief to the MSJ and supporting documents on January 11, 2016. [ECF Nos. 83 through 83-5]. The Court heard oral argument by the parties on January 28, 2016. After considering all papers filed in support of, and in response to, Starbuzz's MSJ, and after hearing oral argument on the matter, the Court took the matter under submission. [ECF No. 104]. On January 29, 2016, the Court granted Starbuzz's motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 105].
As explained in detail in the Court's Order dated January 29, 2016 [ECF No. 105], there are two independent and sufficient bases for the Court's conclusion that Starbuzz is entitled to summary judgment. First, Sharaf fails to present a triable issue of material fact on an issue on which Sharaf would bear the burden of trial on his breach of contract claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Second, both of Sharaf's claims are time barred. See Cal. Civ. P. Code §§ 337, 338(d). For those reasons, the Court grants Starbuzz's motion for summary judgment.
Pursuant to and for the reasons stated in the Court's January 29, 2016 Order [ECF No. 105], the Court hereby enters final judgment in this matter as follows:
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: As to Sharaf's First Amended Complaint Against Starbuzz:
A) Final Judgment is entered in favor of Starbuzz on all of Sharaf's claims in the First Amended Complaint.
B) Starbuzz is the prevailing party in this action.
C) Sharaf shall take nothing in this action.
D) Starbuzz shall recover the costs it incurred in defending against Sharaf's claims. Starbuzz shall file its motion to recover costs within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Judgment.
E) This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for purposes of enforcing any award of costs, by way of contempt or otherwise. /// /// /// /// /// As to Elhalwani's Declaratory Action Against Sharaf:
F) The Court concludes that it is no longer necessary to determine the issues raised in Elhalwani's Declaratory Action, since such issues are rendered moot by the Judgment herein.
G) Elhalwani's Declaratory Action is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
H) Elhalwani and Sharaf shall each bear his own fees and costs with respect to the Declaratory Action.
The Clerk is directed to enter this Final Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 10, 2016
/s/_________
Honorable James V. Selna
United States District Judge