This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/03/2016 at 12:20:59 (UTC).

ARMAN YEGIYANTS VS HAGOP BARDAKJIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/27/2014 ARMAN YEGIYANTS filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against HAGOP BARDAKJIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ and SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0144

  • Filing Date:

    06/27/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

YEGIYANTS ARMAN

Defendants and Respondents

BARDAKJIAN HAGOP

BARDAKJIAN HRATCHIA

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FISHER DAVID S.

GRAY * DUFFY LLP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SINA REZA

GERAGOS LAW GROUP

GERAGOS MATTHEW J.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

6/27/2014: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER/OBLIGATION AND FOR DAMAGES

6/27/2014: COMPLAINT TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER/OBLIGATION AND FOR DAMAGES

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/3/2014: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

8/19/2014: Unknown

Minute Order

9/5/2014: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

9/8/2014: NOTICE OF RULING

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

9/11/2014: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

9/12/2014: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE ARBITRATION; ETC.

10/1/2014: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE ARBITRATION; ETC.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

10/22/2014: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY UNDER 11 USC 362

7/25/2016: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY UNDER 11 USC 362

NOTICE OF RULING

9/28/2016: NOTICE OF RULING

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/29/2015
  • Notice (OF POST MEDIATION STATUS CONF. ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2015
  • Notice (OF PENDENCY OF ACTION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2015
  • Answer to Complaint Filed Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2015
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2015
  • Reply (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMP. ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2015
  • Response (TO OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2015
  • Amended Answer Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2015
  • Objection (TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2015
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2014
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2014
  • Request for Judicial Notice Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2014
  • Demurrer (TO THE COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2014
  • Answer Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2014
  • Motion Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2014
  • CCP 170.6 Application Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2014
  • Notice-Related Cases Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2014
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC550144    Hearing Date: February 14, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 20

Date: 2/14/20 Trial Date: None Set

Case No: BC 550144

Case Name: Yegiyants, et al. v. Bardakjian, et al

MOTION TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE’S SALE

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce, LLC

Responding Party: Defendants Hagop Bardakjian and Hratchia Bardakjian

Defendants 703 E. Angeleno, LLC, 707 E. Angeleno, LLC,

and Commercial Funding, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order Setting Aside Trustee’s Sales

In the Alternative, Further Preliminary Injunction

RELEVANT FACTS:

This is an action for fraudulent transfer brought by plaintiffs Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce, LLC, alleging that defendant Hratchia Bardakjian has wrongfully become record owner of real property belonging to plaintiffs, and has wrongfully transferred it to his brother, defendant Hagop Bardakjian, in order to avoid a monetary claim by plaintiffs.

The matter has been deemed related to a case brought by plaintiff 10415 Commerce, LLC, BC 469194, alleging that defendants Hratchia Bardakjian, Polosajian and unnamed co-conspirators Allison Roberts and Overland Properties conspired to fraudulently convey and deprive Commerce of its primary assets, including real properties and money, which Bardakjian improperly conveyed to himself and then conspired with the remaining defendants to keep from Commerce.

The 10415 Commerce action was ordered to arbitration between Commerce and Hratchia Bardakjian. On August 3, 2017, a judgment confirming the arbitration award was entered. That judgment ordered the transfer of certain properties, including 703 E. Angelo and 707 E. Angelo to 10415 Commerce. That judgment was appealed.

On April 26, 2019, the court in this action granted a motion for preliminary injunction and ordered that defendants Hagop Bardakjian, Hratchia Bardakjian, S.B.S. Trust Deed Network, were restrained from “directly or indirectly, or through their agents, employees, servants, business entities or any other persons,” from participating in a trustees or foreclosure sale of the E. Angelo properties. The court ordered a bond of $2,500. On May 1, 2019, plaintiffs deposited with the court $2,500 cash in lieu of bond.

In the other matter, on May 28, 2019, the court of appeal issued its opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment and issued remittitur on July 30, 2019.

On September 6, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application brought by plaintiffs for an order cancelling a trustee’s sale conducted in violation of the court’s April 26, 2019 preliminary injunction. The court granted the motion to the extent it sought a temporary restraining order and issued an order “enjoining the defendants and all persona acting by, through or on their behalf, from any further transfers sales, liens or encumbrances against the Angeleno Properties,” and set the OSC re preliminary injunction for hearing. The minute order states, “All parties encompasses Hagop Bardakjian, Hratchia Bardakjian, SBS Trust Deed Network, 703 E. Angeleno LLC, 707 E. Angeleno, LLC and John David.” ra

On October 4, 2019, the court granted a motion by plaintiffs for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to allege recently occurring facts and add new parties, which was granted. The file shows the SAC was filed on October 4, 2019, and various new defendants have been added via Amendment to Complaint filings.

On October 25, 2019, the OSC re preliminary injunction and motion to set aside the trustee’s sale were heard. The court published its tentative ruling and the minute order which show that the court had questions on certain issues and requested further briefing on these issues. The court eventually continued this hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction to this date, February 14, 2020 with TRO entered April 26, 2019 as modified on September 6, 2019 remaining in place until February 14, 2020.

The minute order of October 25, 2019 shows that the hearing was continued to December 13, 2019.

On December 5, 2019, defendant Hratchia Bardakjian brought an ex parte application to continue the hearing date, which was granted, and the matter continued to this date. The TRO was ordered to remain in full effect until this date.

On December 19, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application filed by plaintiffs to add Commercial Funding, LLC to the exiting TRO, which was granted.

On February 7, 2020, plaintiffs brought an ex parte application for an order allowing plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, which was granted.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs bring this motion to set aside a Trustee’s Sale and the recorded documents emanating from that sale, but do not provide legal authority pursuant to which the court can do so on a simple noticed motion.

Plaintiffs appear to seek in the alternative that the court extend the preliminary injunction to the new parties who engaged in the conduct which resulted in the transfer of title to the property so that title is no longer in Bardakjian. It appears from the documents submitted that on September 10, 2018, Assignments of Deeds of Trust were recorded against the properties, executed by John David, as attorney in fact for Hagop Bardakjian, assigning and transferring the properties to Wyoming domestic limited liability companies, 707 E. Angeleno LLC and 707 E. Angeleno, LLC, notices of default were recorded on January 9, 2019 by SBS Trust Deed Network, notices of trustee’s sale were recorded on July 16, 2019, setting the sales for August 9, 2019, and on August 20, 2019, Trustee’s deeds upon sale were recorded granting the property to the Wyoming entities.

The court hereby extends the preliminary injunction to apply to the Wyoming entities, as well as to Commercial Funding, LLC, who have now appeared in this matter. It will also be discussed at the hearing if there are other parties which have been served and appeared and have been formally made parties subject to the preliminary injunction, including John M. David and Jim Dawood. Plaintiffs have named Oscar Choi, but a dismissal of that party was requested and entered on February 5, 2020. The opposition filed by the Wyoming entities and Commercial Funding does not appear to object to the entry of an order maintaining the status quo. The opposition seems to argue that the motion is moot because on September 24, 2019, grant deeds were executed by John M. David as manager of the Wyoming corporations in favor of plaintiff 10415 Commerce. [RFJN, Exs. 5, 6]. It would appear that title to the properties is now in conformity with the August 3, 2017 judgment entered in the other case by way of confirmation of the arbitration award in which the arbitrator ordered the transfer of the properties to 10415 Commerce.

In any case, the court has already made a finding in this case that injunctive relief is appropriate in this matter, as plaintiffs have established a probability of prevailing on their claim that defendants are engaging in fraudulent transfer of the subject properties, and that the burden to defendants of refraining from further transfer of the properties is outweighed by the harm to plaintiffs if the properties are subject to further transfer. The injunction is extended to the new parties to the matter. The court orders plaintiff’s counsel to prepare a comprehensive preliminary injunction order which includes any and all new defendants, even those potential defendants who are not named as defendants but will be added as defendants by plaintiff in the near future.

RULING:

Motion for an Order Setting Aside the Trustee’s Sales is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

Request for Order setting aside the trustee’s sales is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to such relief being awarded after trial or other proceedings.

Request for extension of preliminary injunction to new parties is GRANTED.

Good cause appearing, the court orders that its preliminary injunction of April 26, 2019 is extended to all parties to this litigation, and specifically includes defendants 703 E. Angeleno, LLC, 707 E. Angeleno, LLC, Commercial Funding, LLC, John M. David, and Jim Dawood.

Pending trial, defendants HAGOP BARKAKJIAN, HRATCHIA BARDAKJIAN, S.B.S. TRUST DEED NETWORK, 703 E. ANGELENO, LLC, 707 E. ANGELENO, LLC, COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, JOHN M. DAVID and JIM DAWOOD are jointly and severally restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly, or through their agents, employees, servants, business entities or any other persons:

A. Conducting, engaging in, or otherwise participating in a trustee’s sale of the real property described as (i) 703 E. Angeleno, Burbank, California (703 ANGELENO) and (ii) 707 E. Angeleno, Burbank, California (707 ANGELENO) (collectively, the ANGELENO PROPERTIES).

B. Cash deposited by plaintiffs on May 1, 2019 to be maintained by the court in lieu of bond.

Case Number: BC550144    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 8

Date: 10/25/19 Trial Date: None Set

Case No: BC 550144

Case Name: Yegiyants, et al. v. Bardakjian, et al

MOTION TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE’S SALE

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce, LLC

Responding Party: Defendants Hagop Bardakjian and Hratchia Bardakjian

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order Setting Aside Trustee’s Sales

In the Alternative, Further Preliminary Injunction

RELEVANT FACTS:

This is an action for fraudulent transfer brought by plaintiffs Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce, LLC, alleging that defendant Hratchia Bardakjian has wrongfully become record owner of real property belonging to plaintiffs, and has wrongfully transferred it to his brother, defendant Hagop Bardakjian, in order to avoid a monetary claim by plaintiffs.

The matter has been deemed related to a case brought by plaintiff 10415 Commerce, LLC, BC 469194, alleging that defendants Hratchia Bardakjian, Polosajian and unnamed co-conspirators Allison Roberts and Overland Properties conspired to fraudulently convey and deprive Commerce of its primary assets, including real properties and money, which Bardakjian improperly conveyed to himself and then conspired with the remaining defendants to keep from Commerce.

The 10415 Commerce action was ordered to arbitration between Commerce and Hratchia Bardakjian. On August 3, 2017, a judgment confirming the arbitration award was entered. That judgment ordered the transfer of certain properties, including 703 E. Angelo and 707 E. Angelo to 10415 Commerce. That judgment was appealed.

On April 26, 2019, the court in this action granted a motion for preliminary injunction and ordered that defendants were restrained from participating in a trustees or foreclosure sale of the E. Angelo properties.

In the other matter, on May 28, 2019, the court of appeal issued its opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment and issued remittitur on July 30, 2019.

On October 4, 2019, the court granted a motion by plaintiffs for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to allege recently occurring facts and add new parties, which was granted. The file shows the SAC was filed on October 4, 2019, and various new defendants have been added via Amendment to Complaint filings.

OPPOSITION:

Defendant Hratchia Bardakjian has filed a “Response” to the motion indicating he has no stake in the Trustee’s Sale, had no involvement in the foreclosure and has no basis to oppose the motion.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs bring this motion to set aside a Trustee’s Sale and the recorded documents emanating from that sale but does not provide legal authority pursuant to which the court can do so when the sale evidently involved parties other than the defendants here, Hagop Bardakjian and Hratchia Bardakjian, who are subject to the preliminary injunction issued on April 26, 2019.

It is not clear how the court can enforce its injunction against persons and entities who have only recently been named as parties in this action, and evidently have not yet been served or appeared. Plaintiffs have not attempted to obtain an order of contempt against the Bardakjian defendants.

Plaintiffs in the alternative seek to extend the preliminary injunction to apply to the newly named defendants, which also seems to be premature until the court has obtained jurisdiction over those parties. The court will discuss the matter at the hearing, with a view toward exploring what can be done within the authority of the court to ensure that its orders are obeyed.

Otherwise, the issues presented by the motion to the extent requesting that this court set aside the sale and void various documents, appears to be a result which can only be ordered following some proceeding on the merits of the claims that defendants are engaging in fraudulent transfers. Any preliminary injunction would be redundant until new parties are added.

RULING:

Motion for an Order Setting Aside the Trustee’s Sales:

The court will hear argument addressing the following issues:

Are the subject properties the subject of recorded Lis Pendens with respect to this case or

LASC Case No. BC 469194?

What is the status of service of the Second Amended Complaint on the new defendants?

How does the court have jurisdiction to extend the preliminary injunction to parties and persons not yet before it?

What is the chain of title and timing here in connection with any conduct of the Bardakjian defendants? Has there been any contempt of the court’s order which can be pursued?

The August 17, 2019 judgment in BC 469194 which has now been affirmed on appeal, included an order pursuant to which Yegiyants is to apply to the court for an order that the clerk of the court execute a quitclaim deed. [See Ex. 22 ¶ 5]. The moving papers include such deeds and indicate they are pending. [Exs. 45, 46]. When were they submitted, what is their status, and should they be executed forthwith?

The court will set a new hearing date of December 13, 2019 to allow plaintiff to effectuate service on the new DOE party defendants. The plaintiff would need to file a motion for amended preliminary injunction as to the new defendants and set it for hearing for December 13, 2019 and allowing for the plaintiff to obtain a TRO in the interim per an ex parte procedure as to the new defendants.