Strategic Business Holdings v. Kamjula CA4/3

── Strategic Business Holdings v. Kamjula CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 Strategic Business Holdings v. Kamjula CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE STRATEGIC BUSINESS HOLDINGS, INC., G065193 Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01327893) v. OPINION SANDYA KAMJULA, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant; JEANETTE HASHEMI et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre De La Cruz, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.  Mousavi Law and Amy A. Mousavi; Cochran, Davis & Associates and Lisa Kralik Hansen for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. Hashemi Law Firm and Benjamin Martin for Respondents. * * * Defendant Sandya Kamjula challenges the trial court’s dismissal of her cross-claims and its dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff Strategic Business Holdings, Inc.’s claims against her. She contends some of her cross- claims survived the court’s adverse summary adjudication ruling. And she asserts the same ruling cut off Strategic’s right to voluntary dismissal. We find no error in the dismissal of Kamjula’s cross-claims. The trial court’s summary adjudication ruling disposed of all her cross-claims, which relied on a personal guarantee she never signed. But we agree that the summary adjudication terminated Strategic’s right to dismiss its claims, which similarly relied on Kamjula’s nonexistent personal guarantee. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS Kamjula’s company (the buyer) contracted with Strategic to purchase Strategic’s assets.1 Kamjula signed on the buyer’s behalf and the agreement provided that she would personally guarantee performance. The parties later agreed the buyer would execute a secured promissory note, also to be personally guaranteed by Kamjula. But neither a note nor a personal guarantee was ever executed. After the transaction closed, things went sour and this litigation followed. Strategic sued Kamjula and the buyer for breach of the alleged promissory note and Kamjula’s alleged personal guarantee. 1 Kamjula used two different entities in the transaction. For convenience, we do not distinguish between them in this opinion. 2  Kamjula and the buyer cross-complained against Strategic and others, jointly asserting fraud in the inducement and related claims.2 The buyer asserted additional claims for itself only.3 Strategic moved for summary adjudication on the cross- complaint.4 Among other things, it contended Kamjula’s claims failed because “[t]he sole basis for Kamjula’s claim of injury under [the joint cross-claims] is that she was induced to execute a personal guarantee,” which “Kamjula ‘never’ signed.” In her opposition, Kamjula addressed this contention in a section titled, “[Strategic’s] Admission That a Personal Guarantee Was Never Signed . . . Requires Strategic to Dismiss Its [Claims].” (Cleaned up.) She did not dispute the assertion that the personal