This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/12/2019 at 00:34:51 (UTC).

ZEMANEK & MILLS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VS HASSEN REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5635

  • Filing Date:

    04/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ZEMANEK & MILLS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Defendants

HASSEN REAL ESTATE CORPORATIONA CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

ALHASSEN ZIAD

HASSEN REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

HASSEN REAL ESTATE CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Continuance Of Trial

10/10/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Continuance Of Trial

Proof of Service by Mail

7/3/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Answer

7/3/2018: Answer

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Hassen Real Estate Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

6/13/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Hassen Real Estate Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/13/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/13/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Summons - on Complaint

4/12/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/12/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

4/12/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4/12/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/15/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketNotice Of Continuance Of Trial; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Hassen Real Estate Corporation a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Zemanek & Mills, A Professional Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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:

  1. 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”).

  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.)

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

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.
  1. 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:

  1. 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”).

  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.)

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

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.

  1. 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:

  1. 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”).

  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.)

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

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.

  1. 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.