On 04/12/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by ZEMANEK MILLS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION against HASSEN REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
*******5635
04/12/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
ZEMANEK & MILLS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
HASSEN REAL ESTATE CORPORATIONA CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
ALHASSEN ZIAD
HASSEN REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
HASSEN REAL ESTATE CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION
10/10/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Continuance Of Trial
7/3/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
7/3/2018: Answer
6/13/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Hassen Real Estate Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
6/13/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
6/13/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
4/12/2018: Summons - on Complaint
4/12/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet
4/12/2018: Complaint
4/12/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearing04/15/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
DocketNotice Of Continuance Of Trial; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff)
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Hassen Real Estate Corporation a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)
DocketProof of service by first class-mail - civil; Filed by: Hassen Real Estate Corporation a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); As to: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No
DocketUpdated -- Hassen Real Estate Corporation a Delaware Corporation (Defendant): Organization Name changed from Hassen Real Estate Corporationa California Corporation to Hassen Real Estate Corporation a Delaware Corporation
DocketUpdated -- Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) Hassen Real Estate Corporation, a Delaware Corporation: Name Extension changed from Amendment to Complaint/Order: Hassen Real Estate Corporation, a Delaware Corporation to Hassen Real Estate Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) Amendment to Complaint/Order: Hassen Real Estate Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Hassen Real Estate Partnership, a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Type: Fictitious Name
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Hassen Real Estate Partnership, a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/12/2018; Service Cost: 48.58; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Hassen Real Estate Corporationa California Corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/12/2018; Service Cost: 118.58; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Hassen Real Estate Partnership, a California Limited Partnership (Defendant); Hassen Real Estate Corporationa California Corporation (Defendant); Ziad Alhassen (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77
Case Number: 18STLC05635 Hearing Date: March 19, 2020 Dept: 25
DEMURRER
(CCP § 430.40, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Zemanek & Mills, APC’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.
ANALYSIS:
Background
On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff Zemanek & Mills, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Hassen Real Estate Corporation (“HREC”), Hassen Real Estate Partnership (“HREP”), and Ziad Alhassen (“Alhassen”).
On December 5, 2019 Defendants HREC and HREP filed an Answer. Defendant HREP also filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, conversion, and for an accounting.
On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint (the “Demurrer”) and Request for Judicial Notice. No opposition has been filed.
On February 26, 2020, Defendant HREP filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).
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.)
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).)
Discussion
Here, Defendant HREP filed a FACC on February 26, 2020.
An amended pleading may be filed once without leave of court “after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)
Here, the FACC was timely filed and served on the deadline for filing an opposition to the Demurrer. As a result, Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is moot.Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Zemanek & Mills, APC’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: 18STLC05635 Hearing Date: March 10, 2020 Dept: 25
DEMURRER
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Zemanek & Mills, APC’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.
ANALYSIS:
Background
On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff Zemanek & Mills, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Hassen Real Estate Corporation (“HREC”), Hassen Real Estate Partnership (“HREP”), and Ziad Alhassen (“Alhassen”).
On December 5, 2019 Defendants HREC and HREP filed an Answer. Defendant HREP also filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, conversion, and for an accounting.
On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint (the “Demurrer”) and Request for Judicial Notice. No opposition has been filed.
On February 26, 2020, Defendant HREP filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).
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.)
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).)
Discussion
Here, Defendant HREP filed a FACC on February 26, 2020.
An amended pleading may be filed once without leave of court “after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)
Here, the FACC was timely filed and served on the deadline for filing an opposition to the Demurrer. As a result, Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is moot.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Zemanek & Mills, APC’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: 18STLC05635 Hearing Date: March 09, 2020 Dept: 25
DEMURRER
(CCP § 430.40, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Zemanek & Mills, APC’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.
ANALYSIS:
Background
On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff Zemanek & Mills, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Hassen Real Estate Corporation (“HREC”), Hassen Real Estate Partnership (“HREP”), and Ziad Alhassen (“Alhassen”).
On December 5, 2019 Defendants HREC and HREP filed an Answer. Defendant HREP also filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, conversion, and for an accounting.
On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint (the “Demurrer”) and Request for Judicial Notice. No opposition has been filed.
On February 26, 2020, Defendant HREP filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).
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.)
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).)
Discussion
Here, Defendant HREP filed a FACC on February 26, 2020.
An amended pleading may be filed once without leave of court “after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)
Here, the FACC was timely filed and served on the deadline for filing an opposition to the Demurrer. As a result, Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is moot.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Zemanek & Mills, APC’s Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: 18STLC05635 Hearing Date: February 03, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION TO VACATE THE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES
(CRC 3.1332)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Hassen Real Estate Partnership and Hassen Real Estate Corp.’s Motion to Vacate the Trial Date and Related Deadlines is CONTINUED to MARCH 13, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25., Spring Sreet Courthouse.
I. Background & Discussion
On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff Zemanek & Mills (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Hassen Real Estate Corporation (“HREC”), Hassen Real Estate Partnership (“HREP”), and Ziad Alhassen (“Alhassen”). On July 3, 2018, Defendant HREC filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On October 10, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ request for a continuance of the trial date. (10/10/19 Minute Order.) Trial was re-set for December 10, 2019 and the Court stated no further continuances would be permitted absent good cause. (Id.) On December 4, 2019, Defendants HREC and HREP filed substitutions of attorney.
On December 5, 2019, Defendant HREP filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and an Amended Answer; Defendant HREC filed an Answer. Also on December 5, 2019, Defendants HREC and HREP filed an ex parte application to vacate trial date. The Court denied the ex parte application on December 9, 2019 due to an insufficient showing of irreparable harm. (12/9/19 Minute Order.) That same day, Defendants HREC and HREP filed the instant noticed Motion to Vacate Trial Date and Related Deadlines (the “Motion”). The noticed Motion was scheduled for hearing for February 3, 2020.
On the continued trial date of December 10, 2019, the matter was called ready for trial and sent to Department 1 for assignment to a trial court. (12/10/19 Minute Order.) However, the case was sent back upon realization that the Cross-Complaint remained unanswered and the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re Why the Cross-Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed for January 24, 2020. (Id.) The trial date was also continued to April 6, 2020. (Id.) On January 24, 2020, the Court took the matter under submission.
In their Motion, Defendants argue the trial date and related deadlines should be vacated because the parties have not had a chance to conduct discovery and prepare for trial on the newly added claims and defenses in the Cross-Complaint. (Mot., p. 1.) However, whether the Cross-Complaint will survive is a matter that is still being considered under submission.
Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing on the instant Motion to allow for the resolution of whether the Cross-Complaint will be dismissed.
II. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Hassen Real Estate Partnership and Hassen Real Estate Corp.’s Motion to Vacate the Trial Date and Related Deadlines is CONTINUED to march 13, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25., Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.