On 04/13/2020 ISAAC MUSIGHI filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against PARVIZ DANIEL MOSSIGHI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
MOSSIGHI PARVIZ "DANIEL"
ROSEN GLENN T.
6/15/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Respondent's Notice of Related Cases
6/4/2020: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case
6/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
6/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/09/2020
5/20/2020: Objection (name extension) - Objection to Notice of Non-Receipt of Response to Petition to Compel Arbitration Filed By Petitioner Isaac Musighi; Declaration of Curtis A. Graham Attached Hereto
5/7/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Non-Response to Petition
4/20/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of filing Proof of Service
4/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Glenn T. Rosen ISO Petition
4/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Daniel M. Howard ISO Petition
4/13/2020: Memorandum (name extension) - Memorandum Compendium of Exhibits ISO Petition
4/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Shaoul Levy ISO Petition
4/13/2020: Summons - Summons on Petition
4/13/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
4/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Isaac Musighi ISO Petition
4/13/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
4/13/2020: Petition (name extension) - Petition to Compel Arbitration
4/13/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
4/13/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition
DocketOpposition to Respondent's Notice of Related Cases; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Court Order)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/09/2020; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration scheduled for 08/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 06/09/2020; Result Type to Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketObjection to Notice of Non-Receipt of Response to Petition to Compel Arbitration Filed By Petitioner Isaac Musighi; Declaration of Curtis A. Graham Attached Hereto; Filed by: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Non-Response to Petition; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of filing Proof of Service; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Petition; Issued and Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPetition to Compel Arbitration; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration scheduled for 08/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration of Daniel M. Howard ISO Petition; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration of Isaac Musighi ISO Petition; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration of Glenn T. Rosen ISO Petition; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration of Shaoul Levy ISO Petition; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMemorandum Compendium of Exhibits ISO Petition; Filed by: Isaac Musighi (Petitioner); As to: Parviz "Daniel" Mossighi (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 20STCP01325 Hearing Date: January 07, 2021 Dept: 1
Judge David J. Cowan
Hearing Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021
Case Name: Isaac Mushigi v. Parviz Mossighi
Case No.: 20STCP01325
Moving Party: Respondent Mossighi
Responding Party: Petitioner Mushigi
Ruling: The Motion to Transfer is DENIED.
Petitioner to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LA Court Connect rather than in person.
On April 13, 2020, Isaac Mushigi (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration against Parviz “Daniel” Mossighi (“Respondent”).
On June 4, 2020, Respondent filed a Notice of Related Case seeking to deem this case related to Isaac Mushigi v. Pacific M. Int’l. Corp. et al., case no. BC687872, and Daniel Mossighi v. Isaac Mushigi et al., case no. BC688137, and Daniel P. Mossighi v. Isaac Mushigi, case no. BS168107. Petitioner opposed the Notice of Related Case; essentially identical notices were re-filed by Respondent on multiple occasions thereafter, and the notices were also opposed.
On October 19, 2020, the Court, by Judge Steven J. Kleifeld, found the foregoing cases “are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”
On December 10, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion to Transfer.
On December 23, 2020, Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Transfer.
On December 30, 2020, Respondent filed a Reply.
Respondent’s request for judicial notice of several documents is DENIED. As discussed further below, it is unnecessary to take judicial notice of these documents from the parties’ previous litigation because that litigation was deemed not related to this action. Respondent’s objections to the Declaration of Isaac Mushigi are SUSTAINED as the subject passages are irrelevant to the issue before the Court, namely, whether there are grounds to transfer this action to another specific judge. As discussed below, that is a discrete issue to which the parties’ previous litigation is not relevant.
Respondent seeks to transfer this action, in which Petitioner seeks to compel arbitration, to either Judge Edward B. Moreton in Department 27 or Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis in Department 38 on the grounds that these judges are in a better position to assess whether the instant action is duplicative of previous litigation between the parties. This Motion must be denied for two reasons: (1) the motion improperly seeks reconsideration of Judge Kleifeld’s conclusion that this case is not related to the underlying actions, and (2) the relief requested - assigning this case to a specific judge – is actively precluded by the Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (See LASC Local Rule 3.3(b).)
First, Respondent’s arguments are in tension with Judge Kleifeld’s October 19 Order finding the “underlying” cases are not related. The conclusion that these cases “are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)” means Judge Kleifeld necessarily found the cases did not fall under the categories enumerated in that rule. To wit, cases are related if they: “(1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” (CRC 3.300(a).)
Respondent raises the same arguments here as raised below in support of his Notice of Related Case, arguing in particular that: (1) this “action was filed by Isaac to re-litigate old issues that were considered and resolved in the prior binding arbitration and that are the subject of the Judgment issued by Judge Johnson and post-judgment rulings made by Judge Moreton”; (2) “this action and the Underlying Action involve the exact same parties and are based on the exact same or similar claims”; (3) “[t]his action and the Underlying Action arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events”; (4) the “Binding Arbitrators and Judge Johnson and Judge Moreton have already considered and ruled on all of the issues that are being raised in this action”; and (5) “Judge Moreton is familiar with the Parties, the Underlying Action, and the Parties’ conduct during the Underlying Action” and “[Judge] Duffy-Lewis . . . is also familiar with the Parties, the Underlying Action, and the Parties’ conduct.” (8/31/20 Reply, p. 4-7.) In turn, Petitioner sought to distinguish this case from the underlying cases and noted that some had been disposed of for purposes of Rule 3.300. Respondent’s arguments were fully briefed and rejected by Judge Kleifeld, yet are reasserted here as a motion to transfer.
The motion to transfer is more in the nature of a motion for reconsideration for this reason—seeking to overturn Judge Kleifeld’s conclusion by arguing the cases really are related. Respondent did not seek reconsideration of Judge Kleifeld’s conclusion that the cases were not related. Judge Kleifeld reached this conclusion after full review of briefing submitted by both Petitioner and Respondent; the Court is not in a practical position to conduct de novo review of Judge Kleifeld’s conclusion on this point, nor would it be appropriate to do so on this procedural posture. Respondent could have moved for Department 1 to relate these cases on a noticed motion so that the Court could properly assess these issues—but did not do so. (See CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D); Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) (“In the event that the judge designated under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related. Department 1 shall hear the motion, if the cases are all pending in the Central District or are pending in two or more different districts.”)) A motion to transfer is not the appropriate means to dispute Judge Kleifeld’s decision not to relate the cases.
In particular, Judge Kleifeld must have concluded, after briefing, that these actions did not “[a]rise from the same . . . events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact” and did not “[i]nvolve the same parties . . . on the same or similar claims.” This is inconsistent with Respondent’s argument that “[t]he second action [BC687872] involved the same issues and parties as the binding arbitration and the Underlying Action.” (Motion, p. 3.) Similarly, the argument that Judge Moreton would “be in the best place to recognize the duplication of the prior action” due to his experience with case BS168107 is conclusory as to that duplication and facially inconsistent with the order denying relation. Respondent’s contention that Judge Kleifeld “has no familiarity with these matters” is belied by the fact that the parties have been briefing the issue of relation since July 2020. (Motion, p. 9.) Rather, Respondent did not bring this Motion until he received an adverse ruling from Judge Kleifeld. This timing, along with the request for reassignment to specific judges (discussed further below), is suggestive of forum shopping notwithstanding Respondent’s accusations of “judge shopping” and “forum avoidance” by Petitioner.
Second, the request for assignment to a specific judge must be denied on its face. Local Rule 3.3(b) provides that “[t]he clerk must take all reasonably appropriate steps, including a system of random use of case numbers, to ensure that neither any party nor any counsel will be able to anticipate a case assignment. The name of the judge to whom the case is assigned will be designated by the clerk on the summons and the complaint.” One judge handpicking another at the urging of the parties is anathema to this rule, particularly where the request is premised upon those judges’ oversight of separate actions which the Court specifically found were not related to this action (as discussed above). Thus, even disregarding the October 19 Order, the relief requested in this Motion could not be granted. The Court also notes that Judge Moreton is currently sitting in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse, which is one of several personal injury (PI)-exclusive courtrooms in the Spring Street Courthouse; assigning the instant action—seeking to compel arbitration of fraud claims—to a PI courtroom would be inappropriate and frustrate the PI procedures embodied in the Court’s standing orders on this subject.
Finally, Petitioner seeks $2,015 in fees and costs under CCP sec. 396b(b), which provides that “the court may order the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in making or resisting the motion to transfer whether or not that party is otherwise entitled to recover his or her costs of action. In determining whether that order for expenses and fees shall be made, the court shall take into consideration (1) whether an offer to stipulate to change of venue was reasonably made and rejected, and (2) whether the motion or selection of venue was made in good faith given the facts and law the party making the motion or selecting the venue knew or should have known.” Notably, subd. (b) provides that “between the party and [their] attorney, those expenses and fees shall be the personal liability of the attorney not chargeable to the party. Sanctions shall not be imposed pursuant to this subdivision except on notice contained in a party’s papers, or on the court’s own noticed motion, and after opportunity to be heard.”
Petitioner argues Respondent “brought the instant motion to transfer for no reasons other than to delay or seek unfair advantage.” In turn, Respondent argues fees should not be awarded for four reasons: (1) this was not a motion to transfer venue but to transfer to a specific judge; (2) Respondent had a good faith belief the motion was meritorious (3) the motion should be granted anyway; and (4) Petitioner gave insufficient notice he was seeking fees against Respondent’s counsel. The Court rejects the third argument, as the motion must be denied. However, the Court agrees that there is insufficient basis to find the motion was brought in bad faith. While Respondent erred in seeking to dispute Judge Kleifeld’s October 19 Order via an unauthorized motion to transfer to a specific judge, the Court does not believe this error was in bad faith. Respondent laid out here and before Judge Kleifeld the factual bases for believing this action is duplicative of prior litigation. These arguments are reasonable on their face; that these arguments were rejected and/or erroneous does not mean they were brought in bad faith here or below. The Court concludes the motion was brought in good faith even though it must be denied. (See Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 932 (awarding fees and costs where motion “clearly lacked any legal foundation given the facts it knew or should have known”)) The request for fees and costs is therefore DENIED.
The Motion is DENIED.
Petitioner to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear remotely by LA Court Connect rather than in person.
 The Court additionally notes, for context, that Judge Moreton did not preside over the first action between the parties which resulted in a judgment in Respondent’s favor following arbitration. Judge Moreton presided specifically over postjudgment matters in that action; Judge Michael Johnson, who handled prejudgment matters, has retired.
 As discussed above, there is no authority for a noticed motion to transfer a case to a specific judge, particularly not on the grounds that the judge presided over previous litigation between the parties. On such facts, that transfer would be achieved by filing a Notice of Related Case so that the same judge would preside over related cases. Respondent unsuccessfully sought to relate these cases before filing this motion, as discussed, and the instant motion is closer to a motion for reconsideration than a motion to transfer venue.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases