This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 15:20:02 (UTC).

AMIR MOSTAFAVI VS JOSE SERRATOS, ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/19/2015 AMIR MOSTAFAVI filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against JOSE SERRATOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8006

  • Filing Date:

    10/19/2015

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

MOSTAFAVI AMIR AN INDIVIDUAL

MOSTAFAVI AMIR

HERNANDEZ MIGUEL AN INDIVIDUAL

SERRATOS JOSE AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendants and Cross Defendants

HERNANDEZ MIGUEL AN INDIVIDUAL

MUGICA JOSE LUIS AN INDIVIDUAL

SERRATOS JOSE AN INDIVIDUAL

HERNANDEZ MIGUEL

MUGICA JOSE LUIS

SERRATOS JOSE

Defendant and Respondent

MUGICA JOSE LUIS AN INDIVIDUAL

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT-LIMITED JURIS.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP APC

MOSTAFAVI AMIR

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC

KINGSLEY ERIC B. ESQ.

KINGSLEY ERIC BRYCE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

4/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/10/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/14/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/14/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/19/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/19/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

10/19/2015: Unknown

DEFENDANTS? PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

10/19/2015: DEFENDANTS? PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS? PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

10/19/2015: PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS? PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

10/19/2015: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

- NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

10/19/2015: - NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

DECLARATION OF ERIC B. KINGSLEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

11/13/2015: DECLARATION OF ERIC B. KINGSLEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

DEFENDANTS? NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

11/20/2015: DEFENDANTS? NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

12/17/2015: NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

Minute Order

12/1/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF PETITION AND PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS OF $1,670.00 INCURRED TO CONFIRM AWARD (BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 6203); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIE

6/22/2017: NOTICE OF PETITION AND PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS OF $1,670.00 INCURRED TO CONFIRM AWARD (BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 6203); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIE

DECLARATION OF ARI J. STILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD AND TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

8/1/2017: DECLARATION OF ARI J. STILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD AND TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Minute Order

9/20/2017: Minute Order

57 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2019
  • Objection (Objection to Plaintiff Amir Mostafavi's Proposed Order for Release of Funds Pursuant to Judgment); Filed by Jose Serratos (Defendant); Miguel Hernandez (Defendant); Jose Luis Mugica (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • Minute Order ((Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • at 08:31 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Status Conference) of 10/10/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • Minute Order ((Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48; Status Conference (Status Conference; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
107 More Docket Entries
  • 10/19/2015
  • RECEIPT FOR TRANSMITTED RECORD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • REJECTION OF AWARD AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL AFTER ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • NOTICE OF INCOMING TRANSFER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • DEFENDANTS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Amir Mostafavi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2015
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC598006    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 48

(1) MOTION TO SEAL;

(2) MOTION TO ORDER PAYMENT OF POST JUDGMENT INTEREST AND DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM TRUST

MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Defendants Jose Serratos, Miguel Hernandez and Jose Luis Mugica

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No opposition filed; (2) Plaintiff Amir Mostafavi

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion to Seal Documents

Defendants Jose Serratos, Miguel Hernandez and Jose Luis Mugica move to seal documents. Defendants have lodged conditionally under seal the following five documents: (1) Unredacted Motion to Order Plaintiff to Pay Post Judgment Interest And Disbursement of Funds From Trust Account; (2) Unredacted Declaration of Ari J. Stiller In Support of Defendants’ Motions To Order Plaintiff to Pay Post Judgment Interest and For Disbursement of Funds From Trust; (3) The Confidential Settlement Agreement for Jose Serratos; (4) The Confidential Settlement Agreement for Miguel Hernandez; and (5) The Confidential Settlement Agreement for Jose Luis Mugica.

The CRC Rules pertaining to motions to seal apply to settlement agreements. See, e.g., Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283-84.

A motion seeking an order sealing the record must be accompanied by “a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1)(bold emphasis and underlining added). Per CRC Rule 2.550(d), a court may order that a record be filed under seal “only if it expressly finds facts that establish” all of the following:

(Bold emphasis added.)

CRC Rule 2.550(e) provides:

(1) An order sealing the record must:

(A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings;

(B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.

“A request to seal a document must be filed publicly and separately from the object of the request. It must be supported by a factual declaration or affidavit explaining the particular needs of the case.” In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1416 (bold emphasis and underlining added).

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” CRC Rule 2.550(c)(bold emphasis and underlining added). The trial court cannot rely solely on an agreement or stipulation of the parties as the basis for permitting records to be filed under seal. (Citations omitted.)” Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600 (bold emphasis and underlining added).

Here, the motion to seal does not address each of the five aforementioned documents.

The fact that confidentiality is a term of the settlement, may support a finding that there is an overriding interest (first factor). However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.

Indeed, the amount of a settlement has been held not to be confidential:

We are sympathetic to the student's situation as a young crime victim. However, we find no authority that the amount of money a person receives in judgment or court-approved settlement as the result of tortious conduct is confidential. The fact of a damage award, whatever size, is not in itself a private fact deserving protection and secrecy in public education is not in the public interest. The settlement amount is not a trade secret, within a privilege, or likely to place anyone in "clear and present danger of attack." (See Estate of Hearst, supra, 67 Cal. App. 3d 777, 784-785.) Nor is the amount itself the cause of the student's "mental anguish." Although a court is not powerless to seal portions of its records to protect litigants, it may do so only in exceptional circumstances upon a showing of compelling reasons. The student has not shown his interest in sealing the amount of the settlement, even temporarily, outweighs the public right of access to court records.

Copley Press v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367, 375-76 (bold emphasis added).

Moving party has not presented admissible evidence that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. Indeed, no evidence was submitted to articulate a specific showing of serious injury, nor that there is a substantial probability of prejudice, if the record is not sealed:

Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice to its business interests if it is revealed the parties entered into the October 14, 1998, settlement agreement. No admissible evidence has been presented showing defendant will be harmed if the October 14, 1998, agreement or any of its nonfinancial terms are made public particularly in light of the 88 redactions which have deleted any reference to financial data. The fact the parties entered into the October 14, 1998, settlement agreement is a matter of public record. It is discussed in the complaint which is not sealed. It is discussed at length in the mandate petition filed in this case which is unsealed. Defendant has expressly indicated it is not seeking to seal its mandate petition. The mandate petition: refers 49 times to the October 14, 1998, arbitration and settlement agreement; by doing so, defendant identifies the parties to the agreement; explicitly states that a confidential arbitration has been going on before retired Superior Court Judge Eli Chernow since January 1999; on five different pages identifies the motion picture which gave rise to the dispute, “Private School”; explains Mr. Ben Efraim’s relationship to the dispute; and identifies a relative of Mr. Ben Efraim who has knowledge of some of the facts. Apart from the financial figures which have been redacted, the October 14, 1998 agreement is a routine settlement document. Defendant has presented no evidence that disclosure of any of the substantive provisions as distinguished from the redacted financial terms of the October 14, 1998, agreement will prejudice any legitimate confidential business practice. Finally, the arbitration which has been conducted in secret since January 1999, can continue out of the public eye.

To sum up, no substantial prejudice to the contractual obligation not to disclose has been proven. The heavily redacted October 14, 1998, agreement is not the same document presented to us. Defendant has failed to make any showing of prejudice to any of its legitimate commercial interests if the heavily redacted October 14, 1998, agreement is unsealed.

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1284 (bold emphasis added).

As such, the application to seal is DENIED.

Pursuant to CRC Rule 2.551(b)(6), Defendants must notify the court within 10 days of this order if the lodged record is to be filed unsealed. If Defendant does not notify the Court within 10 days of this order, the lodged record will be returned to Defendants. Id.

Motion to Order Plaintiff to Pay Post-Judgment Interest and For Disbursement of Funds from Trust

Given the ruling on the motion to seal, above, the hearing on the motion to order payment of post-judgment interest and for disbursement of funds from trust is CONTINUED to March 3, 2020. If the lodged record is not filed unseal by January 24, 2020, the motion to order payment of post-judgment interest and for disbursement of funds will be placed off-calendar.