This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/18/2021 at 01:50:45 (UTC).

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS SIMPLE AUTO SALES, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/29/2019 WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SIMPLE AUTO SALES, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1012

  • Filing Date:

    01/29/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendants

SIMPLE AUTO SALES A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM

ALSANAM AZMI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

YADEGARI ARASH

FRIEDMAN JOSHUA P

FRIEDMAN JOSHUA P ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

10/7/2021: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/13/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

9/13/2021: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

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

9/13/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Summary of the Case - Summary of the Case

9/13/2021: Summary of the Case - Summary of the Case

Default Judgment - Default Judgment

10/1/2021: Default Judgment - Default Judgment

Answer - Answer

4/18/2019: Answer - Answer

Minute Order - Minute Order (- Hearing on Motion for Order to Enter Default Against Defend...)

8/25/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (- Hearing on Motion for Order to Enter Default Against Defend...)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

3/3/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/3/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

3/3/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Motion for Order (name extension) - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

4/8/2021: Motion for Order (name extension) - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/8/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF JOSHUA P FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENTER DEFAULT AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST AZMI ALSANAM IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,

4/8/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF JOSHUA P FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENTER DEFAULT AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST AZMI ALSANAM IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

8/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial;) of 08/11/2021

8/11/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial;) of 08/11/2021

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

1/27/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

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

2/3/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketDefault judgment by Court entered for Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC DBA Westlake Financial Services, a limited liability Company against Defendant Azmi Alsanam on the Complaint filed by Westlake Services, LLC on 01/29/2019 for damages of $9,895.22, attorney fees of $683.71, interest of $3,133.94, and costs of $296.79 for a total of $14,009.66.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketDefault Judgment; Signed and Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Azmi Alsanam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Default Judgment: As To Parties changed from Azmi Alsanam (Defendant) to Azmi Alsanam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure of Plaintiff to Submit the Default Judgment Packet scheduled for 10/13/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/01/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Simple Auto Sales, a business entity of unknown form (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • DocketSummary of the Case; Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • Docket; On the Complaint filed by Westlake Services, LLC on 01/29/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
45 More Docket Entries
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Azmi Alsanam (Defendant); As to: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Azmi Alsanam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Simple Auto Sales, a business entity of unknown form (Defendant); Azmi Alsanam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Simple Auto Sales, a business entity of unknown form (Defendant); Azmi Alsanam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Westlake Services, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Simple Auto Sales, a business entity of unknown form (Defendant); Azmi Alsanam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC01012 Hearing Date: August 25, 2021 Dept: 26

Westlake Services, LLC\r\nv. Simple Auto Sales, Inc., et al. 19STLC01012

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP\r\n§ 2023.010)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial\r\nServices Motion to Enter Default and for Monetary Sanctions is ruled on as\r\nfollows. THE COURT HEREBY STRIKES DEFENDANT AZMI ALSANAM’S ANSWER FILED ON\r\nAPRIL 18, 2019 AND ENTERS DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT AZMI ALSANAM. THE REQUEST\r\nFOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Westlake\r\nServices, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and common\r\ncounts against Defendants Simple Auto Sales (“Defendant SAS”) and Azmi Alsanam\r\n(“Defendant Alsanam”) on January 29, 2019. Defendant Alsanam filed an Answer on\r\nApril 18, 2019. Defendant SAS was dismissed on February 3, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 3, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to (1) compel Defendant Alsanam’s responses to Request for Production\r\nof Documents and for monetary sanctions; and (2) deem Requests for Admission and\r\nfor monetary sanctions. (Minute Order, 03/03/21.) The Court ordered Defendant Alsanam to serve responses to the Request for\r\nProduction of Document and pay monetary sanctions within 20 days’ notice of the\r\norder. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Defendant Alsanam on the same date. (Notice of Ruling\r\nand Proof of Service, filed 03/03/21.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nfiled the instant Motion to Enter Default and for Monetary Sanctions on April 8,\r\n2021. No opposition has been filed to date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts\r\nhave discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v.\r\nCreative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should\r\nlook to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating\r\nsanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225,\r\n1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful\r\ndiscovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less\r\nsevere sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van\r\nSickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as\r\nsevere as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with\r\ndiscovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad\r\nfaith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court\r\nmay impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) An\r\norder striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party\r\nengaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2) An\r\norder staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is\r\nobeyed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(3) An\r\norder dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(4) An\r\norder rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery motions on March 3,\r\n2021 and notice of the order was served on Defendant Alsanam on the same date. To date,\r\nDefendant Alsanam has not\r\nserved responses in compliance with the Court’s March 3, 2021 order, nor paid\r\nthe monetary sanctions as ordered. (Motion, Friedman Decl., ¶5.) The Court\r\nfinds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Defendant Alsanam’s\r\nnon-compliance. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above\r\nevidence demonstrates that Defendant Alsanam’s compliance with the Court’s\r\norders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that Defendant\r\nAlsanam has no intention\r\nof participating in this action or defending the claims brought by Plaintiff.\r\n“The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad\r\ninfinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th\r\n262, 280.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In light of the award of terminating sanctions, Defendants’\r\nrequest for monetary sanctions is denied as futile. Monetary sanctions were\r\npreviously awarded and remain unpaid.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services\r\nMotion to Enter Default and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY\r\nSTRIKES DEFENDANT AZMI ALSANAM’S ANSWER FILED ON APRIL 18, 2019 AND ENTERS\r\nDEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT AZMI ALSANAM. THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS\r\nDENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'

Case Number: 19STLC01012    Hearing Date: March 03, 2021    Dept: 26


Case Number: 20STLC00332    Hearing Date: March 03, 2021    Dept: 26

Avramov v. Trusted Hands Home Health Inc., et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Demurrer of Cross-Defendants Ilka K. Avramov, as Trustee of the Ilka K. Avramov & Bogidar V. Avramov Revocable Family Trust, VII Commercial Corporation and Todd Nathanson to the First Amened Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED TO MAY 5, 2021 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On January 13, 2020, Ilka K. Avramov, as Trustee of the Ilka K. Avramov & Bogidar V. Avramov Revocable Family Trust filed the instant action against Trusted Hands Home Health Inc. and Armine Yengibaryan. On April 2, 2020, Trusted Hands Home Health Inc. and Armine Yengibaryan (hereinafter “Cross-Complainants”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Avramov, VII Commercial Corporation and Todd Nathanson (hereinafter “Cross-Defendants”).

On August 27, 2020, the Court sustained Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the Cross-Complaint with leave to amend the breach of contract cause of action, and without leave to amend the declaratory relief cause of action. Cross-Complainants filed the First Amended Cross-Complaint on September 21, 2020.

On October 13, 2020, Cross-Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint. Cross-Complainants filed an opposition on January 8, 2021 and Cross-Defendants replied on January 13, 2021.

Discussion

The Court finds that the Demurrer is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Cross-Defendants’ counsel relies on the meet and confer effort with respect to the demurrer to the original Cross-Complainant. (Demurrer, Apollo Decl., ¶3.) The statute, however, requires the parties to meet and confer separately as to every amended pleading:

Before 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. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a) (emphasis added).) The language of the statute is mandatory. Therefore, the Court will not hear the Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint unless the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

Conclusion

Demurrer of Cross-Defendants Ilka K. Avramov, as Trustee of the Ilka K. Avramov & Bogidar V. Avramov Revocable Family Trust, VII Commercial Corporation and Todd Nathanson to the First Amened Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED TO MAY 5, 2021 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 10 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, THE PARTIES ARE TO FILE A JOINT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES, IF ANY, THAT REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED ON DEMURRER. THE JOINT STATEMENT IS NOT TO EXCEED FIVE (5) PAGES.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE DEMURRER BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer YADEGARI ARASH

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FRIEDMAN JOSHUA P