Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/26/2021 at 02:16:20 (UTC).

LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN VS RAHMAN PIRMORADIAN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 08/28/2018 LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN filed an Other lawsuit against RAHMAN PIRMORADIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1020

  • Filing Date:

    08/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN

Defendants

PIRMORADIAN RAHMAN

THE RAWLINGS COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BURUNSUZYAN MARO

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/31/2021
  • Hearing08/31/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • Hearing05/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • Hearing04/22/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Order (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Order FOR DISBURSEMENT OF INTERPLEADED FUNDS scheduled for 04/22/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order FOR DISBURSEMENT OF INTERPLEADED ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion for Order FOR DISBURSEMENT OF INTERPLEADED FUNDS scheduled for 02/24/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 04/22/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 05/06/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 10/21/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 01/18/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan (Plaintiff); As to: Rahman Pirmoradian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan (Plaintiff); As to: Rahman Pirmoradian (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 01/07/2019; Service Cost: 66.71; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • DocketDeclaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by: Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan (Plaintiff); As to: Rahman Pirmoradian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan (Plaintiff); As to: Rahman Pirmoradian (Defendant); The Rawlings Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/25/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/31/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC11020    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., February 24, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Law Offices of Mario Burunsuzyan v. Pirmoradian, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC11020 COMPL. FILED: 08-28-18

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 04-06-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 04-21-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-06-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF INTERPLEADED FUNDS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE INTERPLED FUNDS

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan’s Motion for Disbursement of Interpleaded Funds is CONTINUED TO APRIL 22, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO (¿ Rawlings)

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO (¿ Rawlings)

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO (¿ Rawlings)

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 22, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 22, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On August 28, 2018, Plaintiff Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint in interpleader against Defendants Rahman Pirmoradian (“Pirmoradian”) and The Rawlings Company (“Rawlings”).

A non-jury trial was scheduled for February 25, 2020. At that time, Plaintiff’s counsel stated he intended to file a motion for disbursement of funds and made an oral request for a continuance. (2/25/20 Minute Order.) Plaintiff’s request was granted. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Disbursement of Interpleaded Funds (the “Motion”) on September 4, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims among themselves. (Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 508 (i.e., an escrow-holder who receives conflicting demands from the parties to the escrow regarding the funds or documents he or she holds); City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.)

Once the stakeholder’s right to interplead is established, and he or she deposits the money or personal property in court, he or she may be discharged from liability to any of the claimants. This enables the stakeholder to avoid multiplicity of actions, and the risk of inconsistent results if each of the claimants were to sue him or her separately. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 874; City of Morgan Hill, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at 1122.)

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612.)

If the stakeholder is a defendant who claims no interest in the funds or property held, he or she need not file a cross-complaint interpleader in interpleader. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a).) He or she may simply apply to the court for permission to deposit the money or property with the court clerk, and for an order discharging him or her from further liability to the adverse claimants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (a).) Such order will also substitute the adverse claimants as parties to the action; or, if only money is involved, simply dismiss the stakeholder. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a), 386.5.) The motion must be supported by an affidavit by the stakeholder establishing the ground for interpleader. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a), 386.5.) Notice of the motion must be served on each of the adverse claimants to the funds or property. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a), 386.5.)

  1. Discussion

This action arises from an August 8, 2013 vehicle accident between Defendant Pirmoradian and Otilio S. Pasillas (“Pasillas”) (the “Accident”), who is not a party to this action. (Compl., ¶ 5.) Defendant Pirmoradian entered into a contract for legal services with Plaintiff, including pursuit of a pre-litigation insurance claim against Pasillas. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 7.) Defendant Rawlings provided Defendant Pirmoradian with medical care, which may have been related to the Accident. (Id. at ¶ 5.) As of April 24, 2014, Defendant Rawlings’ medical care lien against Defendant Pirmoradian’s claim totaled $30,075.09. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendant Pirmoradian’s personal injury action settled for $15,000.00 and Pasillas’ insurer issued a check for $15,000.00 to “Maro Burunsuzyan APLC and Rahman Pirmoradian and The Rawlings Company.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) Defendant Pirmoradian, however, refused to endorse the check without being assured that Defendant Rawlings would not be paid from the $15,000.00. (Id. at ¶ 14.) As a result of Defendant Pirmoradian’s refusal to sign the check as issued, on August 9, 2018, Pasillas’ insurer re-issued the $15,000.00 check with the payee noted as “Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court.” (Id. at ¶ 18.)

Plaintiff deposited funds of $15,000.00 with the Court on August 28, 2018. In its Motion, Plaintiff argues the $15,000.00 funds should be distributed as follows: $5,159.19 to itself, $5,000.00 to Defendant Rawlings, and $4,840.81 to Defendant Pirmoradian. (Mot., p. 7:16-23.)

Defendant Pirmoradian was substitute served with the Summons and Complaint on January 7, 2019. (1/18/19 Proof of Service.) Plaintiff’s Motion also includes a Stipulation between Plaintiff and Defendant Rawlings (1) accepting informal service of the Summons and Complaint to avoid the expense of making a formal appearance in the case; (2) accepting a disbursement of $5,000.000 from the interpled funds; and (3) acknowledging that Defendant Rawlings is not entitled to any disbursement greater than $5,000.00. (Id., Burunsuzyan Decl., ¶¶ 12-13, Exhs. B, C.) However, Defendant Pirmoradian has neither appeared in this action nor signed a stipulation stating that he is entitled to only $4,840.81 of the funds. Notably, although Defendant Pirmoradian has not yet appeared, Plaintiff has not requested that default be entered against Defendant Pirmoradian. Unless default is entered against Defendant Pirmoradian, Defendants must litigate their claims amongst themselves.

In addition, although Plaintiff argues it is entitled to $5,159.19 of the interpled funds, it does not provide a declaration from its counsel detailing the reasons it is entitled to that amount, such as the time spent or hourly rate charged on this matter. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether the amount requested are reasonable.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan’s Motion for Disbursement of Interpleaded Funds is CONTINUED TO APRIL 22, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE RAWLINGS COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant