This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/08/2018 at 00:07:38 (UTC).

FUSD vs. Kamran and Company. Inc.

Case Summary

On 04/30/2014 FUSD filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against Kamran and Company Inc. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Simpson, Alan, Ikeda, Dale, Smith, Bruce, Snauffer, Mark and Smith, M. Bruce. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1439

  • Filing Date:

    04/30/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Simpson, Alan

Ikeda, Dale

Smith, Bruce

Snauffer, Mark

Smith, M. Bruce

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Plaintiffs and Defendants

Fresno Unified School District

Standex International Corporation

Kamran and Company, Inc.

Kool Star

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

unincorporation. div. of Standex International Corporation

Defendant and Cross Defendant

Kamran and Company, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Cross Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

Soldani, David A

5260 North Palm Ave, Suite 300

Fresno, CA 93704

Vote, Kurt F.

Ayvazi, Rafik

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

Ayvazi, Rafik

Other Attorneys

Decker, Jason A.

 

Court Documents

Judgment

Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Fresno Unified School District; Kamran and Company, Inc.; Kool Star; Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland; Kamran and Company, Inc.; Fresno Unified School District; Kool Star; Standex International Corporation; Smith, M. Bruce; Standex International Corporation; Kamran and Company, Inc.; Fresno Unified School District; Comment: With Prejudice.

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Full Dismissal

Answer Filed

Answer Filed; Comment: to Second Amended Complaint

Answer Filed

Civil Document; Comment: to Cross Complaint

Answer Filed

Civil Document; Comment: to Cross-Complaint of Standex International Corporation

Case Management Statement Filed

Case Management Statement Filed

Answer Filed

Civil Document; Comment: Answer to 2nd Amended Complaint of Fresno Unified School District

Amended Document Filed

Amended Document Filed; Comment: Second Amended Complaint. (original complaint)

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Arbitrations Status Report

Notice of Entry of Dismissal filed

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Dismissal Not Entered

Dismissal Not Entered; Comment: Request for dismissal filed. Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reason: Consent signature from cross-complaint attorneys are required to dismiss entire action.

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Full Dismissal

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: entry of order

Stipulation and Order filed

Stipulation and Order filed; Judicial Officer: Simpson, Alan; Comment: To lift stay in consideration of completion of Louisiana Arbitration; Order thereon

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Arbitration Status Report

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/25/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Fresno Unified School District; Kamran and Company, Inc.; Kool Star; Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland; Kamran and Company, Inc.; Fresno Unified School District; Kool Star; Standex International Corporation; Smith, M. Bruce; Standex International Corporation; Kamran and Company, Inc.; Fresno Unified School District; Comment: With Prejudice.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2017
  • Jury Trial- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Requested by both parties with estimated time of 10 days.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • Trial Readiness- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • Mandatory Settlement Conference- Hearing Time: 1:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Entry of Dismissal filed- Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Full Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Dismissal Not Entered- Dismissal Not Entered; Comment: Request for dismissal filed. Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reason: Consent signature from cross-complaint attorneys are required to dismiss entire action.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Full Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2016
  • OSC - ADR Stipulation- Judicial Officer: Ikeda, Dale; Hearing Time: 10:07 AM; Cancel Reason: Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Answer Filed- Answer Filed; Comment: to Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
129 More Docket Entries
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial info for Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial: Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial info for Kamran and Company, Inc.: Counter Payment Receipt # 192492 Kamran and Company, Inc. $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial info for Kamran and Company, Inc.: Counter Payment Receipt # 192489 Kamran and Company, Inc. $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial info for Kamran and Company, Inc.: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial info for Kamran and Company, Inc.: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial: Kamran and Company, Inc.; Total Financial Assessment $495.00; Total Payments and Credits $495.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2014
  • Financial info for Fresno Unified School District: Counter Payment Receipt # 194574 Fresno Unified School District $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2014
  • Financial info for Fresno Unified School District: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2014
  • Financial: Fresno Unified School District; Total Financial Assessment $150.00; Total Payments and Credits $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Rafik Ayvazi SBN: 122995 F fl IL E

LAW OFFICES OF RAFIK AYVAZI

15915 Ventura Boulevard FEB 24 2016 Penthouse 2 :

Encino, CA 91436 - FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT Tel. (818) 783-5225 BY oo Fax. (818)981-3651 | DEFUTY

Attorney for Defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a | public entity Case No.: 14 CE CG 01439

(Filed April 30, 2014)

Plaintiff,

ANSWER OF FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

SN KAMRAN AND COMPANY, INC., a ) California corporation; KOOL STAR,an ) unincorporated division of STANDEX ) INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a ) Delaware corporation; FIDELITY AND ) DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND; ) and DOES 1 through 50, )

AND CROSS ACTIONS

Defendant FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, answers the Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Complaint”) of Fresno Unified School District on file as follows: | | | 1. Answering Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint herein under the provisions of Code of Civil

Procedure §431.30, answering Defendant denies generally and specifically each and .every

allegation contained in said Complaint and particularly denies that Plaintiff has been

allegation contained in said Complaint and particularly denies that Plaintiff has been i —~ ' .

i —~ ' .

damaged in the sum alleged or in any other sum or sums, or at all.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff has watved ény and all claims that it may have had or has against answering Defendant arising from the transactions and occurrences set forth in the Complaint.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff is estopped by its own conduct from asserting any and all claims it has or that it may have had against answering Defendant arising from the transactions and occurrences set_forth in the Complaint.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Conduct) ‘Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the conduct (;f Plaintiff and/or persons'. whose conduct is imputable to it precludes recovery by Plaintiff against answering Defendant for any claims asserted herein.

FORTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Offset) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that loss to Plaintiff, if any, was occasioned by and as a result of its failure to comply with the terms of the agreements between Plaintiff and others. Therefore, answering Defendant is entitled to an offset as determined with respect to such failure, against its liability, if any.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statutory Procedural Requirements) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff has not complied with the necessary statutbry procedural requirements which would permit it to

assert the claims alleged herein.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff

unreasonably delayed in bringing this subject action without good cause therefor, and

* thereby prejudiced answering Defendant and, as a direct and proximate result thereof, this

action is barred By the doctrine of Laches.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Breach of Contract-Excuse) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff breached the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant’s Principal herein, by reason of which Defendant is excused from the performance of any obligations under said agreement or any other agreemént relating to the subject project.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s recovery against this answering Defendant, if any, is bafied by Plaintiff s failure to mitigate its alleged damages, if any. If not completely barred, Plaintiff’s recovery against this answering Defendant must be reduced to the extent that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by Plaintiff’s expenses, which it had no legal obligation to inciur.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Secondary Liability) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in the event this answering Defendant is held liable to the Plaintiff, which liability is expressly denied herein, then the liability of this Defendant would bé passive, imputed or sé:condary, while the other Defendants or third parties would be actively or primarily liable for Plaintiff’s

alleged injuries and damages.

1111 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the conduct of Plaintiff constitutes unclean hands which bars Plaintiff’s entitlement to equitable relief, if any.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Ratification) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at.'all times mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiff approved of, ratified or acquiesced in the conduct of this answering Defendant’s principal. Plaintiff is therefore barred from recovery-as a result of any conduct on the part of this answering Defendant, if any, because of Plaintiff’s approval, ratification or acquiescence in that coriduct.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Defective Notice) Answering Defendant is informed a.nd believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff failed to give proper notice of alleged default of the principal under the bond.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Releasg) | Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a full release by Plaintiff of any and all claims it may have had against answering Defendant.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Accord and Satisfaction) Answering Defendafit is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff has

accepted an alternate performance as an accord and satisfaction of its rights, if any, under

the bond.

® @ FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE-DEFENSE

(Fails to State Claim) The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Acts of Others) Answering Defendant is infgrme_d and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s- recovery against this answering Defendant, if any, is reducible to the extent that Plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the acts or omissions of independent third parties, named or unnamed, or their agents, servants, or employees, and not the acts or omissions of this answefing Defendant.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Costs) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it has incurred and continues to incui expenses in connection with the investigation of the facts of the claims being asserted by Plaintiff herein. When the full amount of such expenses is known, this answering Defendant will seek leave of court to amend its answer to set off such expenses. This answering Defendant, by reason of the action brought against it and by the nécessity of filing this answer, has incurred, and will continue to incur, expenses, including attorneys’ fees, in connection with this lawsuit. This answering Defendant is entitled to recover the full amount of such attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in defending this litigation and in investigating the claims asserted against it her—ein.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

| (Defense of Principal Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges it is entitled to assertdefenses of its principal under any surety bond that may be applicable. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by this reference any and all defenses to the Complaint that are or may be asserted by Answering Defendant's principal or a complaint

that may be filed by Defendant’s principal.

1111 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Agreement Conditions) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any alleged agreements were subject to a condition precedent and/or antecedent and that such conditions have occurred or have failed to occur thereby extinguishing or precluding liability of this answering Defendant under said alleged agreement at this time.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

| (Frustration of Purpose) Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to the bond, Defendant’s principal purpose was substantially frustrated without its fault by the

occurrence of an event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the

-alleged agreement were made, thereby discharging any remaining duty of Defendant to

render performance under the bond.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Additional Defenses) As a twenty fourth, separate and affirmative defense, to Cross-Complaint and each cause of action thereof, the answering Cross Defendant reserves the right to allege further

affirmative defenses as they may become known during litigation.

WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for Judgment as follows:

Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of the Complaint on file herein;

Plaintiff be denied all relief requested in said Complaint;

That Judgment as to all Causes of Action be entered in favor of this Defendant; That Defendant recover reasonable attorney's fees and its costs of the suit incurred; For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the

circumstances.

circumstances. DATED: February 23, 2016

DATED: February 23, 2016

LAW OFFICES OF RAFIK AYVAZI

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am overparty to the within action; my business address is 15915 Ventura Boulevard, Penthouse 2, Encino, California 91436.

On February 23, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER OF

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND TO SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT OF FUSD; on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

ATKINS, ANDELSON, LOYA RUUD &ROMO Jonathan S. Vick, Esq.

David A. Soldani, Esq.

5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 300

Fresno, California 93704-2215

WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC

Kurt F. Vote, Esq.

‘Micaela L. Neal, Esq.

265 East River Park Circle, Suite 310 Fresno, CA 93720

Jason Decker, Esq.,

JACOBSON, HANSEN & McQUILLAN, 1690 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 201, Fresno, California 93711

() (BY FACSIMILE) I sent a copy of said document by facsimile machine for instantaneous transmittal via telephone line to offices of the addressee.

(X) (BY MAIL) I placed such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California.

() (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of addressee.

(X) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct

() (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on February 23, 2016, at Encino, California.