This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/26/2021 at 04:20:15 (UTC).

SHAHRAM KAYWANFAR VS HUBERT GUEZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/25/2019 SHAHRAM KAYWANFAR filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against HUBERT GUEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8773

  • Filing Date:

    09/25/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KAYWANFAR SHAHRAM

Defendants

GUEZ HUBERT

LOPEZ NORMA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

BOWSE MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/30/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/30/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Complaint - Complaint

9/25/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

12/11/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

1/7/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

1/11/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

3/24/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 03/24/2021

3/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 03/24/2021

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re Compliance with C.C.P. 430.41(a)

7/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re Compliance with C.C.P. 430.41(a)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

7/14/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Demurrer to the Complaint

1/30/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Demurrer to the Complaint

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/16/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

1/9/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

1/13/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/1/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/25/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

9/25/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/25/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2022
  • Hearing09/28/2022 at 08:30 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
  • 08/04/2021
  • Hearing08/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by: Shahram Kaywanfar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 03/24/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketPursuant to oral stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 08/04/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: Filed By: Hubert Guez (Defendant); Result: Denied; Result Date: 02/24/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings scheduled for 02/24/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 02/24/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Shahram Kaywanfar (Plaintiff); As to: Norma Lopez (Defendant); Service Date: 09/26/2019; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Shahram Kaywanfar (Plaintiff); As to: Hubert Guez (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/25/2019; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Shahram Kaywanfar (Plaintiff); As to: Hubert Guez (Defendant); Norma Lopez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Shahram Kaywanfar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08773    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: 25

CASE NAME: Kaywanfar v. Guez, et al. COMPL. FILED: 09-25-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC08773  DISC. C/O: 02-22-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O:    03-09-21

  TRIAL DATE: 03-24-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Hubert Guez

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Shahram Kaywanfar, in pro per

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Hubert Guez’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

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

OPPOSITION: Filed on December 30, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 7, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 25, 2019, self-represented Plaintiff Shahram Kaywanfar (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for fraud against Defendant Hubert Guez (“Guez”) and Norma Lopez (“Lopez”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Following Defendant Lopez’s failure to respond, default was entered against her on November 1, 2019.

Defendant Guez filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 13, 2020, which was placed off calendar on July 14, 2020. (7/14/20 Minute Order.)

On December 11, 2020, Defendant Guez filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on December 30, 2020 and Defendant filed a Reply on January 7, 2021.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Claim and Order to go to Small Claims Court, Form SC-100, filed on May 2, 2019 in Case No. 19CMSC01030 (the “Small Claims Action”); (2) the October 22, 2019 Order entered in the Small Claims Action; (3) Statement of Information for Celtex Enterprises, Inc. (Mot., RJN, p. 2, Exhs. A-C.)

Defendant’s request is GRANTED as to request numbers (1) and (2). (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, judicial notice is DENIED as to request number (3). (People v. Thacker (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 594, 598-99 [finding that documents prepared by a private person on file with the Secretary of State and not previously part of the Court record cannot be judicially noticed].)

  1. Legal Standard

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.)  Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.)  The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

When the moving party is a defendant, he must demonstrate either of the following exist:

(i)  The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.

(ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(a)(B)(i)-(ii).)

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.)

  1. Discussion

The Motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439. (Mot., Bowse Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for fraud. “The elements fraud A cause of action for fraud must be alleged with specificity such that the plaintiff pleads facts that “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) following Plaintiff obtaining a judgment against Defendants’ company, on July 8, 2019 Defendants represented they would satisfy the judgment by providing machines and other items in exchange for Plaintiff holding-off on post-judgment collection activity; (2) that Defendants sold said machinery and items to other persons; (3) that Defendants made this false promise to evade Plaintiff’s post-judgment collection activity; (4) that Defendants knew their promise was false; (5) that Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ representations and did not engage in any collection efforts; (6) that Plaintiff was damaged as a result of Defendants’ actions in an unspecified amount. (Compl., pp. 3-4.)

The Small Claims Action claim, which has been judicially noticed, sought to recover a $10,000.00 and alleged that “Defendant [Hubert Guez dba Genetic Denim Int’l.] purchased fabric per invoice #2875 for total $17,344.28. Partial payment of $7,251.75 was made. Refuses to pay the balance.” (Mot., RJN, Exh. A.) Defendant Guez is identified as the principal/owner of Genetic Denim. (Id.) On October 22, 2019, the Honorable Victor M. Acevedo entered an amended judgment for “Plaintiff Shahram Kaywanfar DBA Celtex Enterprises, Inc. [and] against [d]efendant Genetic Denim International, LLC dba, Genetic Denim Int’l on Plaintiff’s Claim filed by Shahram Kaywanfar on 5/02/2019 for the principal amount of $10,000.00 and costs of $100.00 for a total of $10,100.00.” (Id., Exh. B.)

Defendant Guez first argues Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the claims asserted in the Complaint because the debt upon which those claims are based was never owed to Plaintiff, it was owed to Celtex Enterprises, Inc. (Mot., p. 2, ¶ 1.) The Court is not persuaded. The judgment in the Small Claims Action was entered in favor of “Shahram Kaywanfar DBA Celtex Enterprises, Inc.” (Mot., RJN, Exh. B.) Notably, in small claims court, parties may only recover up to $5,000.00, but “natural persons” may recover up to $10,000.00. (Code Civ. Proc., §§116.220, subd, (a)(1); 116.221.) Because the small claims court awarded $10,000.00 in damages, the award was rendered to Plaintiff as an individual. Thus, because the judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff, he has standing to enforce it.

Defendant Guez also argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel. (Mot., p. 2, ¶ 2.) “ “‘Res judicata’ describes the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” [Citation.] “A predictable doctrine of res judicata benefits both the parties and the courts because it ‘seeks to curtail multiple litigation causing vexation and expense to the parties and wasted effort and expense in judicial administration.” [Citation.]” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 675, 683.) Similarly, collateral estoppel requires “(1) that the issue sought to be precluded must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding; (3) it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding; (4) the prior decision must be final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same or in privity with the party in the prior proceeding. [Citation.]” (Id.) Collateral estoppel applies to issues litigated, even though some factual matters or legal arguments which could have been raised were not. (Id.)

Defendant Guez argues that the instant action, “like that in the prior small claims action makes clear that Plaintiff is once again attempting to hold [Defendant] Guez personally liable for Genetic Demin International, LLC’s obligation to pay for fabric Genetic Denim purchased from Celtex Enterprises in February 2016.” (Mot., p. 6:16-21.) However, while the Small Claims Action sought to recover money owed for failure to pay an invoice, the instant action seeks to recover on the alleged false representation, made by Defendants personally, that they would hand over certain assets to pay for a judgment. (Mot., RJN, Exh. A; Compl., pp. 3-4.) This alleged false representation was neither considered nor resolved in the Small Claims Action. Thus, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel applies.

Defendant Guez argues that the Complaint “makes clear that the machines that were supposed to be provided to satisfy the judgment against Genetic Denim belonged to Genetic Denim, not [Defendant] Guez personally.” (Id. p. 5:14-25.) However, the Complaint does not state that the “machines and/or other items” to be provided in exchange for satisfaction of the judgment belonged to Genetic Denim.

Relying on Falkowski v. Imation Corp. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 499, 518, Defendant Guez  further argues that a corporate officer or agent cannot be held personally liable for breach of an agreement or promise unless he states that he intends that promise to bind him personally. (Mot., p. 5:14-25.) However, Plaintiff is not bringing a breach of contract action; he is alleging a fraud cause of action. On the issue of personal liability, the California Supreme Court held that “[d]irectors or officers of a corporation do not incur personal liability for torts of the corporation merely by reason of their official position, unless they participate in the wrong or authorize or direct that it be done.” (United States Liability Insurance Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 595.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Guez, personally, made a knowingly false representation that certain machines and other items would be sold to pay off a judgment to induce Plaintiff to hold off on collecting on the judgment, which Plaintiff did to his detriment. (Compl., pp. 3-4.) Thus, Defendant Guez, Genetic Demin’s principal, has not demonstrated recovery against him is barred as a matter of law.

For all of the reasons discussed above, Defendant Guez’s Motion is DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Hubert Guez’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC08773    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Hubert Guez’s Demurrer to Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 30, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 10, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff Shahram Kaywanfar (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for fraud against Defendants Hubert Guez (“Guez”) and Norma Lopez (“Lopez”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On November 1, 2019, default was entered against Defendant Lopez.

On January 13, 2020, Defendant Guez filed the instant Demurrer to Complaint (the “Demurrer”). On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

On February 19, 2020, the Court continued the hearing because Defendant failed to include a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (2/19/20 Minute Order.) The Court ordered Defendant Guez to file and serve a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement and warned that failure to do so could result in the Demurrer being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

To date, Defendant Guez has not filed any supplemental papers as requested. Accordingly, the Demurrer is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Hubert Guez’s Demurrer to Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC08773    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Hubert Guez’s Demurrer to Complaint is CONTINUED TO APRIL 30, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25, . At least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date, Defendant is to file and serve a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the Demurrer being placed off calendar or denied.

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 30, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 14, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff Shahram Kaywanfar (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for fraud against Defendants Hubert Guez (“Guez”) and Norma Lopez (“Lopez”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On January 13, 2020, Defendant Guez filed the instant Demurrer to Complaint (the “Demurrer”). On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

  1. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Demurrer is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.41, subdivision (a). Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to file and serve a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Hubert Guez’s Demurrer to Complaint is CONTINUED TO APRIL 320. 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25.. SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date, Defendant is to file and serve a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the Demurrer being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOWSE MICHAEL